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.
Yep. Albeit its lame its there in black and white.
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?
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Wouldn't the fact that you are still within the warranty period even if you bought the product the second it was made be pretty good proof? If I got a PS3 produced a month earlier and it breaks down a month later, it would be impossible for the PS3 not to be in the warranty period.
Wouldn't the fact that you are still within the warranty period even if you bought the product the second it was made be pretty good proof? If I got a PS3 produced a month earlier and it breaks down a month later, it would be impossible for the PS3 not to be in the warranty period.
Not good enough, what with time machines now in existence and widespread use. SCEA has to protect themselves from time machine warranty abuse.
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
This is actually one thing SCEA allows though. As long as you have the ORIGINAL purchase receipt, it doesn't matter where you got the unit.
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
LiquidK on
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
Nah they still can't say that.
"When did you buy this?"
*check receipt*
"January 3rd."
If you have the receipt, there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser. That part of the warranty clause is invalid.
The OP could call back and say, "I misunderstood. I got a the money as a gift, but I bought the PS3 myself."
He still doesn't have the receipt, though. Which I am thinking is the #1 reason he isn't getting a free PS3 back.
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
That if I buy a PS3 and gift it to you, you are not eligible for the warranty. That's inherently "a big deal." I mean, I cannot really adequately explain to you why your brain should reject the obnoxiousness of that...it just should, and your brain may not be functioning properly if it's not sending up red flags.
Okay, I just found this:
This Limited Warranty applies to the original retail purchaser only and may not be assigned or transferred. However, some jurisdictions extend the protection of implied warranties to subsequent consumers and therefore this limitation may not apply to you.
Some states do not allow limitations as to how long an implied warranty lasts and/or exclusions or limitations of consequential damages, so the above limitations and/or exclusions of liability may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state.
The first is from the Xbox 360 warranty and the second from the PS3 warranty. The "original purchaser" thing may not be binding anyway, depending on where you live. It's an implied warranty condition in some jurisdictions, that a warranty can transfer to a new owner within the warranty period, and it may not be legally disclaimed in some jurisdictions even with a limited liability warranty.
Therefore it could be illegal (for either company) to deny warranty service to someone who isn't the original purchaser, depending on where this person is.
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
Nah they still can't say that.
"When did you buy this?"
*check receipt*
"January 3rd."
If you have the receipt, there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser. That part of the warranty clause is invalid.
The OP could call back and say, "I misunderstood. I got a the money as a gift, but I bought the PS3 myself."
He still doesn't have the receipt, though. Which I am thinking is the #1 reason he isn't getting a free PS3 back.
Oh don't be dense. If I buy a PS3 on a credit card, the purchase will be in my name. If you try to claim a warranty on it, you'll be doing so on your name. My name is different from your name. It'd be quite easy to prove, with non-cash purchases and proper research, if someone trying to claim warranty service was the original purchaser or not.
Is any of this likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible and the statement "there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser" is false.
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
Nah they still can't say that.
"When did you buy this?"
*check receipt*
"January 3rd."
If you have the receipt, there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser. That part of the warranty clause is invalid.
The OP could call back and say, "I misunderstood. I got a the money as a gift, but I bought the PS3 myself."
He still doesn't have the receipt, though. Which I am thinking is the #1 reason he isn't getting a free PS3 back.
Oh don't be dense. If I buy a PS3 on a credit card, the purchase will be in my name. If you try to claim a warranty on it, you'll be doing so on your name. My name is different from your name. It'd be quite easy to prove, with non-cash purchases and proper research, if someone trying to claim warranty service was the original purchaser or not.
Is any of this likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible and the statement "there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser" is false.
The fact that I use my credit card to purchase an item doesn't necessarily mean the item is mine, does it? It simply means my card was used to buy it. And really, can Sony go back and request personal information from Visa to see the name of the card that bought the system? All they would do is say "You have the receipt, you are the owner."
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?
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
Nah they still can't say that.
"When did you buy this?"
*check receipt*
"January 3rd."
If you have the receipt, there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser. That part of the warranty clause is invalid.
The OP could call back and say, "I misunderstood. I got a the money as a gift, but I bought the PS3 myself."
He still doesn't have the receipt, though. Which I am thinking is the #1 reason he isn't getting a free PS3 back.
Oh don't be dense. If I buy a PS3 on a credit card, the purchase will be in my name. If you try to claim a warranty on it, you'll be doing so on your name. My name is different from your name. It'd be quite easy to prove, with non-cash purchases and proper research, if someone trying to claim warranty service was the original purchaser or not.
Is any of this likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible and the statement "there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser" is false.
The fact that I use my credit card to purchase an item doesn't necessarily mean the item is mine, does it? It simply means my card was used to buy it. And really, can Sony go back and request personal information from Visa to see the name of the card that bought the system? All they would do is say "You have the receipt, you are the owner."
The fact that you use your credit card to purchase an item does, necessarily in fact, mean you are the "original purchaser."
We are not talking about "original owner" we are talking about "original purchaser."
You can all laugh and pretend that phrase doesn't mean anything or that there is no way to prove that a receipt holder is not the original purchaser, but I assure you that "original purchaser" means exactly what it means, that SCEA is not necessarily unable to determine who the original purchaser is given a particular console, and that if they were able to ascertain that you were not the original purchaser they could legally deny you warranty service, which I would not put past them considering the way they are treating people without receipts. As unreasonable as my hypothetical is, it's only slightly less unreasonable to act the way they are currently acting. There is no good reason to deny someone warranty service on, say, a PSP Slim, receipt or not.
A lot of companies say in their warranty that it only applies to the original purchaser but are lenient on it for gifts. Customer service reps don't like being jerks unless you deserve it.
So Sony's customer service sucks and Microsoft's hardware sucks. How is the Wii doing? Do they tell you to jam the remote up your ass for service?
They're actually pretty cool. It'd be nice if they actually sent a box to ship the Wii in, but other than that it's no more painful than dealing with Microsoft (maybe less so since I just had to fill out an online form and didn't have to call).
So, regardless of legal issues at hand, I need to say it:
lolsony.
No, seriously. What a bunch of fucking cocks.
I guess I'll just hide a shitload of photocopies of the original receipt around my room when I inevitably buy the PS3. Yes, buy. I certainly can't have anyone gift it to me, now, can I?
Edit: I'd like to add that, except for extended warranties bought in stores, I've never had to provide a receipt for any warranty service ever, nor have I heard of any case requiring a receipt before this thread. THIS SAID, I always keep my receipts for expensive items, because you "never know".
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.
I agree that the principal of what you are describing is just and legal, but in reality I don't think I could convince any retailer to give me a refund for an open PC game.
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.
I agree that the principal of what you are describing is just and legal, but in reality I don't think I could convince any retailer to give me a refund for an open PC game.
Maybe not in the UK, but in the US there are enough chains of huge "general" stores that one of them is bound to take it back.
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.
I agree that the principal of what you are describing is just and legal, but in reality I don't think I could convince any retailer to give me a refund for an open PC game.
Maybe not in the UK, but in the US there are enough chains of huge "general" stores that one of them is bound to take it back.
Correct. I am 100% positive that in the US I would be able to get a refund without having to go to court but my point was that if I did have to go to court, the US courts (at least) would absolutely side with me. I mean, this hasn't actually been tested yet, but no information nor logic suggests that the EULA in the case of limited activations would be upheld. It's essentially an invalid practice and may not even be legal unchallenged.
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.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
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.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
You are inventing this "standard electronics warranty practice"
We've already quoted all 3 major home console warranty clauses, all saying proof of purchase required.
So, not to take this thread or anything, but a quick question about PS3 warranty: My controller that came with my PS3 is acting wonky. The left analog stick sometimes triggers the right one, and the right one is kind of jumpy in games. So, when playing Warhawk or Uncharted or something the camera will swing to the left when I'm just walking and not touching the camera stick (the right stick). It's not unplayable, really, but it is rather annoying sometimes. Do you guys think Sony would replace it for me? I do have the receipt and all that, but I'm afraid they may not believe it's the one that came with the PS3 or something.
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.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
You are inventing this "standard electronics warranty practice"
We've already quoted all 3 major home console warranty clauses, all saying proof of purchase required.
Proof of Purchase =/= Sales Reciept
In fact, Proof of Purchase USUALLY reffers to the UPC off of the box, since you could have a reciept for an item that you've already returned.
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.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
You are inventing this "standard electronics warranty practice"
We've already quoted all 3 major home console warranty clauses, all saying proof of purchase required.
A proof of purchase is typically some portion of the package of consumer goods, and is defined by the product's manufacturer. Most commonly, the proof of purchase is defined as the UPC symbol on the package, but can be some other portion of the package (such as a boxtop). During the Old-Time Radio period, radio premiums usually required a proof of purchase from the sponsor's product in order to acquire them.
The proof of purchase is often required for sales promotions and manufacturer rebates as evidence that the customer purchased the product. When multiple purchases are required to redeem these rewards, it is referred to as a premium incentive.
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.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
Whether or not the device is still under warranty is not even in question here. It is under warranty, but the OP is not the warrantee. That's the whole issue. If he had the receipt he could pass himself off as the original purchaser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_purchase
A proof of purchase is typically some portion of the package of consumer goods, and is defined by the product's manufacturer. Most commonly, the proof of purchase is defined as the UPC symbol on the package, but can be some other portion of the package (such as a boxtop). During the Old-Time Radio period, radio premiums usually required a proof of purchase from the sponsor's product in order to acquire them.
The proof of purchase is often required for sales promotions and manufacturer rebates as evidence that the customer purchased the product. When multiple purchases are required to redeem these rewards, it is referred to as a premium incentive.
The part in lime is the operative phrase out of that definition.
From the PS3 warranty:
"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."
So, not to take this thread or anything, but a quick question about PS3 warranty: My controller that came with my PS3 is acting wonky. The left analog stick sometimes triggers the right one, and the right one is kind of jumpy in games. So, when playing Warhawk or Uncharted or something the camera will swing to the left when I'm just walking and not touching the camera stick (the right stick). It's not unplayable, really, but it is rather annoying sometimes. Do you guys think Sony would replace it for me? I do have the receipt and all that, but I'm afraid they may not believe it's the one that came with the PS3 or something.
First make sure that your analog sticks are zeroed when you fire up the controller and that you are not touching either of them. I don't know about the PS3 controllers but many controllers if the sticks aren't at the zero position when they are turned on will display the same behavior you are describing. If you can rule this out then call sony and see what they say.
So, not to take this thread or anything, but a quick question about PS3 warranty: My controller that came with my PS3 is acting wonky. The left analog stick sometimes triggers the right one, and the right one is kind of jumpy in games. So, when playing Warhawk or Uncharted or something the camera will swing to the left when I'm just walking and not touching the camera stick (the right stick). It's not unplayable, really, but it is rather annoying sometimes. Do you guys think Sony would replace it for me? I do have the receipt and all that, but I'm afraid they may not believe it's the one that came with the PS3 or something.
First make sure that your analog sticks are zeroed when you fire up the controller and that you are not touching either of them. I don't know about the PS3 controllers but many controllers if the sticks aren't at the zero position when they are turned on will display the same behavior you are describing. If you can rule this out then call sony and see what they say.
Yeah, they're zeroed. I've even tried reseting the controller multiple times (i.e. pushing the button on the back). I think the stick's just wonky.
Not that I planned on getting a ps3, but I'll be sure to warn my friend, who is planning on getting one.
The ps2 was a complete piece of shit, hardware wise, wouldn't want to ever get stuck with a non-warrantied Sony product again.
If you look up the warranties of the Wii, 360, and PS3 you'll see that they're all the same in that they are warranted to Original purchaser. The OP of this thread was not the original purchaser, that is why he is not being covered by the warranty.
Actually, it's more like criticizing a steak at a fancy restaurant because it is undercooked, etc. After you send it back, the cook comes out of the kitchen and demands written proof that the steak is yours. As you attempt to muster a response to such a bizarre demand, the cook brains you with a meat tenderizer and returns to his ivory tower kitchen. Keep in mind, this all occurs after you have saved up enough money to purchase this fine cut of meat (as expected by the restaurant owner), which costs more than other steaks that taste just as good because it has white truffles for garnish (which isn't necessary to enjoy the steak and in fact is something most people don't value much anyways). Oh, I also for got that the host of the restaurant kept you waiting for a table an extra hour when an equally good steakhouse across the way was seating people immediately.
So the solution to future problems is to immediately return every gift with a gift receipt and then buy it back, getting a real receipt. For hardware over 500 bones, I'd say it's worth the hassle to not deal with the shit the OP describes.
so what we're saying is that if you have a ps3, no matter what the circumstances you got it under (used, theft, Jesus descended from heaven and handed it to you, etc) if it breaks, sony should have to replace it, no questions asked.
Posts
So... Being hung up on is not exactly the best customer service move to make. I don't know what to say, aside from I'd be pissed.
Yep. Albeit its lame its there in black and white.
"I didn't buy this but I have the receipt"
"NO WARRANTY FOR YOU NEXT"
O_o
That isn't the point. The "original purchaser" is the person who originally purchased the console, not who currently owns the receipt. What if a service representative asks, offhand, "so when did you buy this?" and you say "well, I got it as a gift last Christmas..." They would then be within their rights, apparently, to deny your warranty claim.
Not good enough, what with time machines now in existence and widespread use. SCEA has to protect themselves from time machine warranty abuse.
This is actually one thing SCEA allows though. As long as you have the ORIGINAL purchase receipt, it doesn't matter where you got the unit.
Okay..? You aren't eligible for the warranty.. what's the big deal?
Nah they still can't say that.
"When did you buy this?"
*check receipt*
"January 3rd."
If you have the receipt, there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser. That part of the warranty clause is invalid.
The OP could call back and say, "I misunderstood. I got a the money as a gift, but I bought the PS3 myself."
He still doesn't have the receipt, though. Which I am thinking is the #1 reason he isn't getting a free PS3 back.
That if I buy a PS3 and gift it to you, you are not eligible for the warranty. That's inherently "a big deal." I mean, I cannot really adequately explain to you why your brain should reject the obnoxiousness of that...it just should, and your brain may not be functioning properly if it's not sending up red flags.
Okay, I just found this:
The first is from the Xbox 360 warranty and the second from the PS3 warranty. The "original purchaser" thing may not be binding anyway, depending on where you live. It's an implied warranty condition in some jurisdictions, that a warranty can transfer to a new owner within the warranty period, and it may not be legally disclaimed in some jurisdictions even with a limited liability warranty.
Therefore it could be illegal (for either company) to deny warranty service to someone who isn't the original purchaser, depending on where this person is.
Oh don't be dense. If I buy a PS3 on a credit card, the purchase will be in my name. If you try to claim a warranty on it, you'll be doing so on your name. My name is different from your name. It'd be quite easy to prove, with non-cash purchases and proper research, if someone trying to claim warranty service was the original purchaser or not.
Is any of this likely to happen? Of course not. But it's possible and the statement "there is NO WAY to prove you AREN'T the original purchaser" is false.
The fact that I use my credit card to purchase an item doesn't necessarily mean the item is mine, does it? It simply means my card was used to buy it. And really, can Sony go back and request personal information from Visa to see the name of the card that bought the system? All they would do is say "You have the receipt, you are the owner."
The fact that you use your credit card to purchase an item does, necessarily in fact, mean you are the "original purchaser."
We are not talking about "original owner" we are talking about "original purchaser."
You can all laugh and pretend that phrase doesn't mean anything or that there is no way to prove that a receipt holder is not the original purchaser, but I assure you that "original purchaser" means exactly what it means, that SCEA is not necessarily unable to determine who the original purchaser is given a particular console, and that if they were able to ascertain that you were not the original purchaser they could legally deny you warranty service, which I would not put past them considering the way they are treating people without receipts. As unreasonable as my hypothetical is, it's only slightly less unreasonable to act the way they are currently acting. There is no good reason to deny someone warranty service on, say, a PSP Slim, receipt or not.
No, but I do that anyway.
Colon Control, the best game in the colon genre ever made!
They're actually pretty cool. It'd be nice if they actually sent a box to ship the Wii in, but other than that it's no more painful than dealing with Microsoft (maybe less so since I just had to fill out an online form and didn't have to call).
lolsony.
No, seriously. What a bunch of fucking cocks.
I guess I'll just hide a shitload of photocopies of the original receipt around my room when I inevitably buy the PS3. Yes, buy. I certainly can't have anyone gift it to me, now, can I?
Edit: I'd like to add that, except for extended warranties bought in stores, I've never had to provide a receipt for any warranty service ever, nor have I heard of any case requiring a receipt before this thread. THIS SAID, I always keep my receipts for expensive items, because you "never know".
search YouTube for "Wii sex"
I'm going to regret this, won't I?
Actually, no. It is a pretty amusing video.
The sequel is kind of meh, though.
I agree that the principal of what you are describing is just and legal, but in reality I don't think I could convince any retailer to give me a refund for an open PC game.
Maybe not in the UK, but in the US there are enough chains of huge "general" stores that one of them is bound to take it back.
Correct. I am 100% positive that in the US I would be able to get a refund without having to go to court but my point was that if I did have to go to court, the US courts (at least) would absolutely side with me. I mean, this hasn't actually been tested yet, but no information nor logic suggests that the EULA in the case of limited activations would be upheld. It's essentially an invalid practice and may not even be legal unchallenged.
What no one seems to be accepting is the idea that BOTH the receipt OR the serial number are valid methods to determine whether a device is still under warranty. In every case where I've used a warranty to get an item replaced / repaired without a receipt they have simply started the warranty at the date of manufacture. In instances where the manufacture date would put it out of warranty, the consumer has the option of providing a proof of the date of purchase. This allows the manufacturer to set the warranty start to that new date, hopefully putting them back under warranty.
For some reason SCEA has decided that they do NOT want to follow standard electronics warranty practice and its causing the OP no end of issues.
For your own Steam Signature visit https://alabasterslim.com/steam-signatures/
Guild Wars 2: Kendrik.5984
You are inventing this "standard electronics warranty practice"
We've already quoted all 3 major home console warranty clauses, all saying proof of purchase required.
Proof of Purchase =/= Sales Reciept
In fact, Proof of Purchase USUALLY reffers to the UPC off of the box, since you could have a reciept for an item that you've already returned.
Pokémon HGSS: 1205 1613 4041
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_purchase
It's what he gets for criticizing a work of art.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Whether or not the device is still under warranty is not even in question here. It is under warranty, but the OP is not the warrantee. That's the whole issue. If he had the receipt he could pass himself off as the original purchaser.
The part in lime is the operative phrase out of that definition.
From the PS3 warranty:
First make sure that your analog sticks are zeroed when you fire up the controller and that you are not touching either of them. I don't know about the PS3 controllers but many controllers if the sticks aren't at the zero position when they are turned on will display the same behavior you are describing. If you can rule this out then call sony and see what they say.
Willie Tanner Livestream
The ps2 was a complete piece of shit, hardware wise, wouldn't want to ever get stuck with a non-warrantied Sony product again.
Yeah, they're zeroed. I've even tried reseting the controller multiple times (i.e. pushing the button on the back). I think the stick's just wonky.
If you look up the warranties of the Wii, 360, and PS3 you'll see that they're all the same in that they are warranted to Original purchaser. The OP of this thread was not the original purchaser, that is why he is not being covered by the warranty.
Actually, it's more like criticizing a steak at a fancy restaurant because it is undercooked, etc. After you send it back, the cook comes out of the kitchen and demands written proof that the steak is yours. As you attempt to muster a response to such a bizarre demand, the cook brains you with a meat tenderizer and returns to his ivory tower kitchen. Keep in mind, this all occurs after you have saved up enough money to purchase this fine cut of meat (as expected by the restaurant owner), which costs more than other steaks that taste just as good because it has white truffles for garnish (which isn't necessary to enjoy the steak and in fact is something most people don't value much anyways). Oh, I also for got that the host of the restaurant kept you waiting for a table an extra hour when an equally good steakhouse across the way was seating people immediately.
That's... the most bizarre analogy ever. It's not bad, but... wow. Did you just pick the steak thing and run with it?
I'm just clarifying.