It is NOT reasonable to expect some one to give a receipt with a gift. Sony's warranty conditions are NOT the accepted standard, and they are NOT known until the box is opened, so there is NO way for the gift giver to know that a receipt will be needed by the recipient.
Sony is engaging in EXTREMELY shady business tactics by setting up a warranty with clauses designed specifically to screw people over. It is expected that a warranty may be strict in what it considers to be covered, but I have NEVER seen a major manufacturer be so shady as to try to cheat LEGITIMATE customers out of their warranty coverage.
Yeah, I'm loving that their response to a high rate of failures last console generation is stricter warranty terms, not stricter quality control. Beautiful, that. The entire point of these terms is to try and ensure that a healthy percentage of legitimate owners whose consoles should be covered by warranty won't end up receiving service, thus saving money. Beyond shady.
mcdermott on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Even if it WERE a valid condition, the fact that it is on the inside of the box, not the outside, means that the customer cannot be held liable for it.
Is this true? At all?
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
It sounds to me like Sony is refusing to warranty the unit because he has no proof of purchase. Despite the Serial #, this does not prove when the unit was purchased, or that he is the owner of the unit.
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Also, since you erased most of your original post, did you already give your serial # to Sony? If so, they've got all your calls marked down on your service ticket, so you can't exactly call back and change your story. And, I'm not pointing fingers here, but if there is something "fishy" with your serial number, they would definately act in the manner you are describing.
As a rule, customer service reps are trained to avoid situations where they might be implying or accusing a customer of anything. In this case, they would simply find a loophole to not warranty your unit (and loopholes are placed in warranties for a reason). They wouldn't come out and say something like, "I'm sorry sir, but that serial number is reported as stolen."
Just playing devil's advocate here, because it all sounds really strange. CSSupervisor hung up on you? Did you tell her to fuck off or something?
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
It is NOT reasonable to expect some one to give a receipt with a gift. Sony's warranty conditions are NOT the accepted standard, and they are NOT known until the box is opened, so there is NO way for the gift giver to know that a receipt will be needed by the recipient.
Sony is engaging in EXTREMELY shady business tactics by setting up a warranty with clauses designed specifically to screw people over. It is expected that a warranty may be strict in what it considers to be covered, but I have NEVER seen a major manufacturer be so shady as to try to cheat LEGITIMATE customers out of their warranty coverage.
Yeah, I'm loving that their response to a high rate of failures last console generation is stricter warranty terms, not stricter quality control. Beautiful, that. The entire point of these terms is to try and ensure that a healthy percentage of legitimate owners whose consoles should be covered by warranty won't end up receiving service, thus saving money. Beyond shady.
The quality control is definatly higher than it was for the PS2.
But I'm still curous on why the OP can't call the person who gave the PS3 as a gift and ask if they can make some phonecalls and dig up a reciept.
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
Correct. This is what the law states.
No retailers recognise it, mostly because if no consumers fight for the right to do something, they loose it.
"Excuse me Mr.EbGames. I want to return this copy of Ghost Squad for the Wii."
"But it's open! You just didn't like it.. because it sucked. You can't return opened media."
"No, I want to return it because the EULA states I cannot copy this game and sell it to my friends. That's what I intended to do when I purchased it."
"Oh ok. *CHING* Refund."
If the "law" states that the consumer can do this, then big corporations would be allowing it. I could walk into BestBuy or Walmart and do it.. but I can't. I think there are exceptions to these consumer laws we aren't seeing here.
Even if it WERE a valid condition, the fact that it is on the inside of the box, not the outside, means that the customer cannot be held liable for it.
Is this true? At all?
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
It sounds to me like Sony is refusing to warranty the unit because he has no proof of purchase. Despite the Serial #, this does not prove when the unit was purchased, or that he is the owner of the unit.
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Also, since you erased most of your original post, did you already give your serial # to Sony? If so, they've got all your calls marked down on your service ticket, so you can't exactly call back and change your story. And, I'm not pointing fingers here, but if there is something "fishy" with your serial number, they would definately act in the manner you are describing.
As a rule, customer service reps are trained to avoid situations where they might be implying or accusing a customer of anything. In this case, they would simply find a loophole to not warranty your unit (and loopholes are placed in warranties for a reason). They wouldn't come out and say something like, "I'm sorry sir, but that serial number is reported as stolen."
Just playing devil's advocate here, because it all sounds really strange. CSSupervisor hung up on you? Did you tell her to fuck off or something?
I didn't need a receipt to get my Xbox 360 warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Gamecube warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get three different Western Digital/Maxtor HDD warranties honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Saitek X36 warranty honored.
I'm sure there are more examples if I dug into my memory but that should do it.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
PAPER!
My brother warrantied his Wii. He didn't need a receipt, but only because it was 1 month out of development. The CSR even said, "Keep that receipt in case you need to get it replaced later on." They were BEYOND helpful in this event too, sending the new Wii unit before he even sent his broken on to them.
For me, I needed a receipt with my Ipod a few years back. I also needed a receipt for my Samsung MP3 player before that.
I just don't see how a company can honour a warranty without the receipt. How do they know when you actually bought it, as opposed to when it was manufactured?
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
Correct. This is what the law states.
No retailers recognise it, mostly because if no consumers fight for the right to do something, they loose it.
"Excuse me Mr.EbGames. I want to return this copy of Ghost Squad for the Wii."
"But it's open! You just didn't like it.. because it sucked. You can't return opened media."
"No, I want to return it because the EULA states I cannot copy this game and sell it to my friends. That's what I intended to do when I purchased it."
"Oh ok. *CHING* Refund."
If the "law" states that the consumer can do this, then big corporations would be allowing it. I could walk into BestBuy or Walmart and do it.. but I can't. I think there are exceptions to these consumer laws we aren't seeing here.
Uhm.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
PAPER!
My brother warrantied his Wii. He didn't need a receipt, but only because it was 1 month out of development. The CSR even said, "Keep that receipt in case you need to get it replaced later on." They were BEYOND helpful in this event too, sending the new Wii unit before he even sent his broken on to them.
For me, I needed a receipt with my Ipod a few years back. I also needed a receipt for my Samsung MP3 player before that.
I just don't see how a company can honour a warranty without the receipt. How do they know when you actually bought it, as opposed to when it was manufactured?
It's all tracked by serial number.
Which has been indicated multiple times in this thread.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
Correct. This is what the law states.
No retailers recognise it, mostly because if no consumers fight for the right to do something, they loose it.
"Excuse me Mr.EbGames. I want to return this copy of Ghost Squad for the Wii."
"But it's open! You just didn't like it.. because it sucked. You can't return opened media."
"No, I want to return it because the EULA states I cannot copy this game and sell it to my friends. That's what I intended to do when I purchased it."
"Oh ok. *CHING* Refund."
If the "law" states that the consumer can do this, then big corporations would be allowing it. I could walk into BestBuy or Walmart and do it.. but I can't. I think there are exceptions to these consumer laws we aren't seeing here.
Uhm.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
So we're stacking laws upon laws upon laws here? Regardless of what you tell the retailer, you could get a refund for opened merchandise based soley on not accepted the EULA.
In any event, we digress from the warranty discussion.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
Except for BioShock.
And probably
Couscous on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
PAPER!
My brother warrantied his Wii. He didn't need a receipt, but only because it was 1 month out of development. The CSR even said, "Keep that receipt in case you need to get it replaced later on." They were BEYOND helpful in this event too, sending the new Wii unit before he even sent his broken on to them.
For me, I needed a receipt with my Ipod a few years back. I also needed a receipt for my Samsung MP3 player before that.
I just don't see how a company can honour a warranty without the receipt. How do they know when you actually bought it, as opposed to when it was manufactured?
It's all tracked by serial number.
Which has been indicated multiple times in this thread.
Right. But is the onus not on the consumer to prove when he bought the item? Sony definately has documentation of when the item was purchased then, but it's the consumer who wants it replaced.
Like I said before, there seems to be some other reason why they aren't accepting this warranty and they are using the 'no receipt' and 'gift' clauses to deny it.
He owns the system itself. There is NO reason why that shouldn't be enough to prove that he, y'know, owns the system.
The warranty is only good for the original purchaser of the System, in order to transfer the warranty of the system you need the receipt. Also you only get a warranty if the system is purchased new. Which is why we need to receipt to make sure it wasnt purchased refurbished or through an unauthorized retailer.
Sorry, Scynix, but despite what you apparently believe, companies are not allowed to arbitrarily create their own warranty conditions out of thin air, especially of this nature. This is an illegitimate business practice.
Actually check your PS2 warranty its the exact same as the PS3 and the PSP. A receipt is required
Even if it WERE a valid condition, the fact that it is on the inside of the box, not the outside, means that the customer cannot be held liable for it.
Why don't you do warranty research on a product before you buy it?
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
Those companies gave you a Gesture of Goodwill. Not all companies have to do it.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Xbox 360 warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Gamecube warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get three different Western Digital/Maxtor HDD warranties honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Saitek X36 warranty honored.
Even if it WERE a valid condition, the fact that it is on the inside of the box, not the outside, means that the customer cannot be held liable for it.
If everything inside the box didn't count then there would be no warranty. It is standard procedure to require a receipt for electronics to do returns or service work. I thought everyone knew to include gift receipts with their expensive tech these days.
If it was purchased with a credit card then the purchaser can get a new receipt printed out from most major retailers.
And multiple times it's been stated SCEA's warranty is based on the receipt- not the tracked serial number. You just retaliate that with, "that's not legal!"
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
Scynix on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Even if it WERE a valid condition, the fact that it is on the inside of the box, not the outside, means that the customer cannot be held liable for it.
If everything inside the box didn't count then there would be no warranty. It is standard procedure to require a receipt for electronics to do returns or service work. I thought everyone knew to include gift receipts with their expensive tech these days.
If it was purchased with a credit card then the purchaser can get a new receipt printed out from most major retailers.
On that note, has the OP tried contacting the "gifter" about getting a receipt from the retailer?
And multiple times it's been stated SCEA's warranty is based on the receipt- not the tracked serial number. You just retaliate that with, "that's not legal!"
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
Law doesn't require a precedence set, merely a standard. Just because it hasn't been taken to court doesn't mean it's legal/illegal.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
Except for BioShock.
No, not except for Bioshock. If you are talking about activations on the PC version, well I'm positive that most retailers would accept a return anyway. And if not? I'm absolutely positive a court would side with the consumer. If it is not advertised that there are a limited number of activations BEFORE purchase, then the consumer cannot be legally bound to it. It would be akin to asking someone to signing a contract, then adding a post script, and having that post-script be legally binding.
The thing is, it would never reach court because:
a) Most retailers would accept the refund if a customer pressed enough.
b) If (a) failed, most customers would realize the cost and annoyance of going to court would make it a futile gesture and worth less than the 50 dollars they paid for Bioshock.
All in all though, there's no such thing as a valid End User License Agreement unless you actually, you know, agree to it. If you purchase something, open the box, read the EULA, and decide "oh fuck this" then I guarantee you a court would side with you.
And multiple times it's been stated SCEA's warranty is based on the receipt- not the tracked serial number. You just retaliate that with, "that's not legal!"
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
Law doesn't require a precedence set, merely a standard. Just because it hasn't been taken to court doesn't mean it's legal/illegal.
Drez is constantly making statements like, "that's not legal". In order for something to be illegal, it has to have a law. That's what MAKES it illegal. Things don't just "start" illegal.
Scynix on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
And multiple times it's been stated SCEA's warranty is based on the receipt- not the tracked serial number. You just retaliate that with, "that's not legal!"
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
Law doesn't require a precedence set, merely a standard. Just because it hasn't been taken to court doesn't mean it's legal/illegal.
But is the general consensus in this thread that big bad Sony is doing something illegal with their warranties? If so, what is illegal? Not saying you need a receipt for warranty redemption on the box? Show me a box that says that.
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
Correct. This is what the law states.
No retailers recognise it, mostly because if no consumers fight for the right to do something, they loose it.
"Excuse me Mr.EbGames. I want to return this copy of Ghost Squad for the Wii."
"But it's open! You just didn't like it.. because it sucked. You can't return opened media."
"No, I want to return it because the EULA states I cannot copy this game and sell it to my friends. That's what I intended to do when I purchased it."
"Oh ok. *CHING* Refund."
If the "law" states that the consumer can do this, then big corporations would be allowing it. I could walk into BestBuy or Walmart and do it.. but I can't. I think there are exceptions to these consumer laws we aren't seeing here.
Uhm.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
So we're stacking laws upon laws upon laws here? Regardless of what you tell the retailer, you could get a refund for opened merchandise based soley on not accepted the EULA.
In any event, we digress from the warranty discussion.
I don't even know what this means? A contract between buyer and seller is not "law." It may be legally protected or not, but I cannot just draft any old contract, have you sign it, and imagine that it is "law" in the sense being discussed here. Merely because a company may choose to clarify or reiterate, in their EULA, that their software may not be illegally copied, doesn't mean there's any legal stacking going on.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
Except for BioShock.
No, not except for Bioshock. If you are talking about activations on the PC version, well I'm positive that most retailers would accept a return anyway. And if not? I'm absolutely positive a court would side with the consumer. If it is not advertised that there are a limited number of activations BEFORE purchase, then the consumer cannot be legally bound to it. It would be akin to asking someone to signing a contract, then adding a post script, and having that post-script be legally binding.
The thing is, it would never reach court because:
a) Most retailers would accept the refund if a customer pressed enough.
b) If (a) failed, most customers would realize the cost and annoyance of going to court would make it a futile gesture and worth less than the 50 dollars they paid for Bioshock.
All in all though, there's no such thing as a valid End User License Agreement unless you actually, you know, agree to it. If you purchase something, open the box, read the EULA, and decide "oh fuck this" then I guarantee you a court would side with you.
In most EULA's I've actually read, it says 'return this product to place of purchase if you do not agree' or something along those lines. If it did not, could a court simply say, "Well, you don't have to agree with the EULA, and you don't have to install the software. You still own it, though."
And multiple times it's been stated SCEA's warranty is based on the receipt- not the tracked serial number. You just retaliate that with, "that's not legal!"
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
Law doesn't require a precedence set, merely a standard. Just because it hasn't been taken to court doesn't mean it's legal/illegal.
Drez is constantly making statements like, "that's not legal". In order for something to be illegal, it has to have a law. That's what MAKES it illegal. Things don't just "start" illegal.
Correct, but I'm merely making the statement that for a law to be a law it doesn't require a precedence set. A precedence implies that a case has been heard with a ruling favor, which doesn't really matter in establishing law, merely a standard in which to try someone.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
Except for BioShock.
No, not except for Bioshock. If you are talking about activations on the PC version, well I'm positive that most retailers would accept a return anyway. And if not? I'm absolutely positive a court would side with the consumer. If it is not advertised that there are a limited number of activations BEFORE purchase, then the consumer cannot be legally bound to it. It would be akin to asking someone to signing a contract, then adding a post script, and having that post-script be legally binding.
The thing is, it would never reach court because:
a) Most retailers would accept the refund if a customer pressed enough.
b) If (a) failed, most customers would realize the cost and annoyance of going to court would make it a futile gesture and worth less than the 50 dollars they paid for Bioshock.
All in all though, there's no such thing as a valid End User License Agreement unless you actually, you know, agree to it. If you purchase something, open the box, read the EULA, and decide "oh fuck this" then I guarantee you a court would side with you.
In most EULA's I've actually read, it says 'return this product to place of purchase if you do not agree' or something along those lines. If it did not, could a court simply say, "Well, you don't have to agree with the EULA, and you don't have to install the software. You still own it, though."
Well, this is one of those massive legal disconnects. I think someone's going to have to go to actually go to court over this someday to get this straightened out. I don't really have an answer for you.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
Of course you can compare, you just have to go onto their website or call them.
Isn't the fact that the warranty information is freely available right on their website enough to keep Sony in the legal when it comes to that? I mean, technically it is made available before purchase.
Radikal_Dreamer on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
On that same page:
If you sell directly to consumers who come to your place of business to buy, you must make written warranties available at the point of sale. You must do this with all written warranties on the products you sell warranties from manufacturers, as well as any written warranties you extend.
The Pre-Sale Availability Rule requires that sellers make warranties readily available to prospective buyers either by displaying them in close proximity to the warranted products, or by furnishing them upon request prior to sale and posting prominent signs to let customers know that warranties can be examined upon request. The Rule does not specify any particular method for fulfilling its requirements. For example, an appliance retailer might post a refrigerator warranty on the front of the appliance, or in the freezer compartment. Or, a retailer of small products, such as watches or electric razors, might keep the warranties readily available behind the counter, or keep them indexed in a binder near the warranted products, and post signs stating their availability. Any of these methods is acceptable.
TL;DR: It is enough for the retailer to simply have warranty information available upon request. So, no, it does not have to state warranty requirements 'on the box,' as some posters have declared.
Edit: Actually, we are talking about the manufacturer, not retailer. But I'm assuming the FTC treats both the same.. who fucking knows. In any case, it does not appear to be a requirement to post warranty stipulations on the box. In the end, you can definitely return it the minute you open it and see the warranty card's requirements.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires that every written warranty on a consumer product that costs more than $10 have a title that says the warranty is either "full" or "limited" (The Act calls these titles "designations.") The title is intended to provide consumers, at a glance, with a key to some of the important terms and conditions of a warranty.
The title "full warranty" is a shorthand message to consumers that the coverage meets the Act's standards for comprehensive warranty coverage. Similarly, the title "limited warranty" alerts consumers that the coverage does not meet at least one of the Act's standards, and that the coverage is less than "full" under the Act.
What the Terms "Full" and "Limited" Mean Determining whether your warranty is a "full" or a "limited" warranty is not difficult. If each of the following five statements is true about your warranty's terms and conditions, it is a "full" warranty:
1. You do not limit the duration of implied warranties.
2. You provide warranty service to anyone who owns the product during the warranty period; that is, you do not limit coverage to first purchasers.
3. You provide warranty service free of charge, including such costs as returning the product or removing and reinstalling the product when necessary.
4. You provide, at the consumer's choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product.
5. You do not require consumers to perform any duty as a precondition for receiving service, except notifying you that service is needed, unless you can demonstrate that the duty is reasonable.
If any of these statements is not true, then your warranty is "limited".
You are not required to make your entire warranty "full" or "limited" If the statements above are true about the coverage on only some parts of your product, or if the statements are true about the coverage during only one part of the warranty period, then your warranty is a multiple warranty that is part full and part limited.
I suppose I may stand corrected. I still think it is dickish to limit in this fashion, but it is not necessarily illegal as SCEA states their warranty is "limited."
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
A VALID PROOF OF PURCHASE IN THE FORM OF A BILL OF SALE OR RECEIPT FROM AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER WITH THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE MUST BE PRESENTED TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE.
The original purchaser is entitled to this warranty only if the date of purchase is registered at point of sale or the consumer can demonstrate, to Nintendo's satisfaction, that the product was purchased within the last 12 months.
1. Submit proof of purchase in the form of a bona fide, dated bill of sale, receipt, or invoice (or a copy) evidencing that your request for service is made within the Warranty Period.
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
A VALID PROOF OF PURCHASE IN THE FORM OF A BILL OF SALE OR RECEIPT FROM AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER WITH THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE MUST BE PRESENTED TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE.
The original purchaser is entitled to this warranty only if the date of purchase is registered at point of sale or the consumer can demonstrate, to Nintendo's satisfaction, that the product was purchased within the last 12 months.
1. Submit proof of purchase in the form of a bona fide, dated bill of sale, receipt, or invoice (or a copy) evidencing that your request for service is made within the Warranty Period.
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
A VALID PROOF OF PURCHASE IN THE FORM OF A BILL OF SALE OR RECEIPT FROM AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER WITH THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE MUST BE PRESENTED TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE.
The original purchaser is entitled to this warranty only if the date of purchase is registered at point of sale or the consumer can demonstrate, to Nintendo's satisfaction, that the product was purchased within the last 12 months.
1. Submit proof of purchase in the form of a bona fide, dated bill of sale, receipt, or invoice (or a copy) evidencing that your request for service is made within the Warranty Period.
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Well, their actual warranty states that it covers only the original purchaser. So SCEA could technically deny service to you whether you have a receipt or not. Simply having a receipt does not make you the original purchaser.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
A VALID PROOF OF PURCHASE IN THE FORM OF A BILL OF SALE OR RECEIPT FROM AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER WITH THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE MUST BE PRESENTED TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE.
The original purchaser is entitled to this warranty only if the date of purchase is registered at point of sale or the consumer can demonstrate, to Nintendo's satisfaction, that the product was purchased within the last 12 months.
1. Submit proof of purchase in the form of a bona fide, dated bill of sale, receipt, or invoice (or a copy) evidencing that your request for service is made within the Warranty Period.
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Just because EVERYONE ELSE is doing it, that doesn't mean SCEA has to do it. O_o
I'm just trying to illustrate that 'requiring a receipt' is not some crazy, unheard of convention.
and if Sony's marketing team did what everyone else was doing, they might see better sales..........
Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
A VALID PROOF OF PURCHASE IN THE FORM OF A BILL OF SALE OR RECEIPT FROM AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER WITH THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE MUST BE PRESENTED TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE.
The original purchaser is entitled to this warranty only if the date of purchase is registered at point of sale or the consumer can demonstrate, to Nintendo's satisfaction, that the product was purchased within the last 12 months.
1. Submit proof of purchase in the form of a bona fide, dated bill of sale, receipt, or invoice (or a copy) evidencing that your request for service is made within the Warranty Period.
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Just because EVERYONE ELSE is doing it, that doesn't mean SCEA has to do it. Different companies different policies.
Okay, so they don't have to do it. How about, I dunno, doing it because it's a better way to treat your customers? Or for the PR boost? Or both?
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
Well, their actual warranty states that it covers only the original purchaser. So SCEA could technically deny service to you whether you have a receipt or not. Simply having a receipt does not make you the original purchaser.
If you have the original receipt, who is to say you AREN'T the original purchaser?
Posts
Edit: Someone best sig that.
Yeah, I'm loving that their response to a high rate of failures last console generation is stricter warranty terms, not stricter quality control. Beautiful, that. The entire point of these terms is to try and ensure that a healthy percentage of legitimate owners whose consoles should be covered by warranty won't end up receiving service, thus saving money. Beyond shady.
Is this true? At all?
Along those same lines, you could return open video games to the store because you disagree with the EULA (which isn't on the box).
It sounds to me like Sony is refusing to warranty the unit because he has no proof of purchase. Despite the Serial #, this does not prove when the unit was purchased, or that he is the owner of the unit.
I'm sorry, but every.single.warranty I've ever had to get honoured required a receipt. Every single one. Without exception.
Also, since you erased most of your original post, did you already give your serial # to Sony? If so, they've got all your calls marked down on your service ticket, so you can't exactly call back and change your story. And, I'm not pointing fingers here, but if there is something "fishy" with your serial number, they would definately act in the manner you are describing.
As a rule, customer service reps are trained to avoid situations where they might be implying or accusing a customer of anything. In this case, they would simply find a loophole to not warranty your unit (and loopholes are placed in warranties for a reason). They wouldn't come out and say something like, "I'm sorry sir, but that serial number is reported as stolen."
Just playing devil's advocate here, because it all sounds really strange. CSSupervisor hung up on you? Did you tell her to fuck off or something?
Correct. This is what the law states.
No retailers recognise it, mostly because if no consumers fight for the right to do something, they loose it.
Edit: Check this link out
Odd, because both times I've had to have a warranty honored I've not needed a receipt. So do we paper-rock-scissors to see whose anecdotal evidence wins?
(An iPod and a Nintendo Wii, in case you're curious)
EDIT: I'm not counting my Dell or PowerBook, since both of those were ordered from the company directly.
The quality control is definatly higher than it was for the PS2.
But I'm still curous on why the OP can't call the person who gave the PS3 as a gift and ask if they can make some phonecalls and dig up a reciept.
Satans..... hints.....
"Excuse me Mr.EbGames. I want to return this copy of Ghost Squad for the Wii."
"But it's open! You just didn't like it.. because it sucked. You can't return opened media."
"No, I want to return it because the EULA states I cannot copy this game and sell it to my friends. That's what I intended to do when I purchased it."
"Oh ok. *CHING* Refund."
If the "law" states that the consumer can do this, then big corporations would be allowing it. I could walk into BestBuy or Walmart and do it.. but I can't. I think there are exceptions to these consumer laws we aren't seeing here.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Xbox 360 warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Gamecube warranty honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get three different Western Digital/Maxtor HDD warranties honored.
I didn't need a receipt to get my Saitek X36 warranty honored.
I'm sure there are more examples if I dug into my memory but that should do it.
PAPER!
My brother warrantied his Wii. He didn't need a receipt, but only because it was 1 month out of development. The CSR even said, "Keep that receipt in case you need to get it replaced later on." They were BEYOND helpful in this event too, sending the new Wii unit before he even sent his broken on to them.
For me, I needed a receipt with my Ipod a few years back. I also needed a receipt for my Samsung MP3 player before that.
I just don't see how a company can honour a warranty without the receipt. How do they know when you actually bought it, as opposed to when it was manufactured?
Uhm.
That is against the law by default. The EULA is irrelevant in that case.
If the EULA states something non-standard and arbitrary like "can only play the game 10 times before it will disable" then you'd better believe that a court would side with the consumer, if the retailer wouldn't accept a return on it.
It's all tracked by serial number.
Which has been indicated multiple times in this thread.
Except for BioShock.
So we're stacking laws upon laws upon laws here? Regardless of what you tell the retailer, you could get a refund for opened merchandise based soley on not accepted the EULA.
In any event, we digress from the warranty discussion.
And probably
Right. But is the onus not on the consumer to prove when he bought the item? Sony definately has documentation of when the item was purchased then, but it's the consumer who wants it replaced.
Like I said before, there seems to be some other reason why they aren't accepting this warranty and they are using the 'no receipt' and 'gift' clauses to deny it.
The warranty is only good for the original purchaser of the System, in order to transfer the warranty of the system you need the receipt. Also you only get a warranty if the system is purchased new. Which is why we need to receipt to make sure it wasnt purchased refurbished or through an unauthorized retailer.
Actually check your PS2 warranty its the exact same as the PS3 and the PSP. A receipt is required
Why don't you do warranty research on a product before you buy it?
Those companies gave you a Gesture of Goodwill. Not all companies have to do it.
Different companies, different policies.
If everything inside the box didn't count then there would be no warranty. It is standard procedure to require a receipt for electronics to do returns or service work. I thought everyone knew to include gift receipts with their expensive tech these days.
If it was purchased with a credit card then the purchaser can get a new receipt printed out from most major retailers.
Ok.. I'll go with that. Prove it. The internet is full of legal bs. Stop calling it illegal and post a precedence.
On that note, has the OP tried contacting the "gifter" about getting a receipt from the retailer?
Law doesn't require a precedence set, merely a standard. Just because it hasn't been taken to court doesn't mean it's legal/illegal.
No, not except for Bioshock. If you are talking about activations on the PC version, well I'm positive that most retailers would accept a return anyway. And if not? I'm absolutely positive a court would side with the consumer. If it is not advertised that there are a limited number of activations BEFORE purchase, then the consumer cannot be legally bound to it. It would be akin to asking someone to signing a contract, then adding a post script, and having that post-script be legally binding.
The thing is, it would never reach court because:
a) Most retailers would accept the refund if a customer pressed enough.
b) If (a) failed, most customers would realize the cost and annoyance of going to court would make it a futile gesture and worth less than the 50 dollars they paid for Bioshock.
All in all though, there's no such thing as a valid End User License Agreement unless you actually, you know, agree to it. If you purchase something, open the box, read the EULA, and decide "oh fuck this" then I guarantee you a court would side with you.
Drez is constantly making statements like, "that's not legal". In order for something to be illegal, it has to have a law. That's what MAKES it illegal. Things don't just "start" illegal.
But is the general consensus in this thread that big bad Sony is doing something illegal with their warranties? If so, what is illegal? Not saying you need a receipt for warranty redemption on the box? Show me a box that says that.
I don't even know what this means? A contract between buyer and seller is not "law." It may be legally protected or not, but I cannot just draft any old contract, have you sign it, and imagine that it is "law" in the sense being discussed here. Merely because a company may choose to clarify or reiterate, in their EULA, that their software may not be illegally copied, doesn't mean there's any legal stacking going on.
In most EULA's I've actually read, it says 'return this product to place of purchase if you do not agree' or something along those lines. If it did not, could a court simply say, "Well, you don't have to agree with the EULA, and you don't have to install the software. You still own it, though."
Correct, but I'm merely making the statement that for a law to be a law it doesn't require a precedence set. A precedence implies that a case has been heard with a ruling favor, which doesn't really matter in establishing law, merely a standard in which to try someone.
Not about the receipt, but that is relevant to the discussion on whether or not specific warranty information should be made available before purchase, especially limiters.
Well, this is one of those massive legal disconnects. I think someone's going to have to go to actually go to court over this someday to get this straightened out. I don't really have an answer for you.
Of course you can compare, you just have to go onto their website or call them.
On that same page:
TL;DR: It is enough for the retailer to simply have warranty information available upon request. So, no, it does not have to state warranty requirements 'on the box,' as some posters have declared.
Edit: Actually, we are talking about the manufacturer, not retailer. But I'm assuming the FTC treats both the same.. who fucking knows. In any case, it does not appear to be a requirement to post warranty stipulations on the box. In the end, you can definitely return it the minute you open it and see the warranty card's requirements.
http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS3/Warranties
I suppose I may stand corrected. I still think it is dickish to limit in this fashion, but it is not necessarily illegal as SCEA states their warranty is "limited."
So, you really do need the receipt to take advantage of the warranty. In Nintendo's case, they'll accept the serial number if its registered.
Which is why you always keep your pop!
Well, their actual warranty states that it covers only the original purchaser. So SCEA could technically deny service to you whether you have a receipt or not. Simply having a receipt does not make you the original purchaser.
I'm just trying to illustrate that 'requiring a receipt' is not some crazy, unheard of convention.
Okay, so they don't have to do it. How about, I dunno, doing it because it's a better way to treat your customers? Or for the PR boost? Or both?
If you have the original receipt, who is to say you AREN'T the original purchaser?