Isn't that the idea of a warranty? You cover it till it runs out?
Not sure how ACL covers this. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that you have been covered but I don't understand why they would.
For any product sold within Australia by any business, ACL requires the seller provide the buyer a statutory warranty as defined within the legislation. This obligation is on the seller since they must operate according to Australian law.
The best way to look at a manufacturers warranty is that it is more a guarantee to the seller that the product will be fit for use and that if some fault occurs within a given timeframe, they will come to the rescue (otherwise why would anyone want to sell that manufacturers product).
The notable difference between the two warranties is that the manufacturers warranty has an end date specified. Further, in the case of a motor vehicle manufacturers warranty, the conditions allow it to be transferable to another owner should the original owner onsells the product.
A statutory warranty doesn't have a set duration specified within the legistaltion other than what is reasonable given the product in question and the price payed. It also isn't transferable.
The interesting thing is if one buys a Mitsubishi for $30k it has a 10 year manufacturers warranty and one would logically think the statutory warranty should be of a similar if not longer duration. Thus if one buys a premium vehicle, like a BMW for $100K, the ACL implication of thee other makers who offer longer manufacturers warranties must have a bearing on what is reasonable duration for the statutory warranty given the price paid for this premium vehicle. A reasonable consumer should conclude that a reasonable statutory warranty duration in this case would be much much longer than the BMW 3 year manufacturers warranty offered.
In essesnce Mitsubishi's and other manufacturers actions on increasing the manufacturers warranty duration must act as a rising tide to lift what is a reasonable duration from a statutory warranty perspective, atleast for any thinking person.
If you want to understand the how and why of ACL, your best option is a inquisitive mind and some critical thinking while skimming the actual legislation itself... Otherwise you may pay businesses for some silly extended warranty which is in my view simply throwing money away...
Here is a snippet how the
ACL defines things.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Volume 3 - Schedule 2—The Australian Consumer Law
Chapter 3—Specific protections
Part 3-2—Consumer transactions
Subdivision A—Guarantees relating to the supply of goods
54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and
(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from defects; and
(d) safe; and
(e) durable;
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
(3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:
(a) the nature of the goods; and
(b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and
(c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and
(d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and
(e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.
(4) If:
(a) goods supplied to a consumer are not of acceptable quality; and
(b) the only reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality were specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the consumer agreed to the supply;
the goods are taken to be of acceptable quality.
(5) If:
(a) goods are displayed for sale or hire; and
(b) the goods would not be of acceptable quality if they were supplied to a consumer;
the reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality are taken, for the purposes of subsection (4), to have been specifically drawn to a consumer’s attention if those reasons were disclosed on a written notice that was displayed with the goods and that was transparent.
(6) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and
(b) they are damaged by abnormal use.
(7) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer acquiring the goods examines them before the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods; and
(b) the examination ought reasonably to have revealed that the goods were not of acceptable quality.
www.accc.gov.au
