Wow.

  • kadup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Notice how I said brazilian law, yet you’re pretending the logic in your country would apply.

    A company could write any warranty terms they wanted - hell, they could write a clause claiming “I hate laws and I’m willingly subjecting myself to the terms of this manufacturer, no takesies-backsies” and guess what, I’d still be protected by the lawful warranty process.

    A company can set their own terms for additional warranties they might want to offer as part of their marketing, with some restrictions still. But for the legal minimum? No warranty terms in the world could violate them.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      If Brazilian law offers such good consumer protections by default, then that just further proves the point that a written policy isn’t necessary

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Of course it is, because the point isn’t whether or not they could deny doing the bare minimum - they can’t.

        The point is companies like LTT use a “extended warranty!”, “lifetime warranty!”, “never have a headache with our products in your life!” as part of their marketing, so they make these claims to change how the customer will evaluate their purchase… yet they try to get away with having undefined terms, because this way, they can actually deny the promised lifetime warranty for whatever random bullshit they come up with.

        Both situations are protected in Brazilian law. Certainly the bare minimum doesn’t have to be written, the law does so for you already, but any claims of further protections need to be written and can’t be changed after the fact.