The rumor I heard was that if you buy a product that fails before the warranty ends, you do not need to contact the manufacturer (in #Belgium). You can simply return the product to the merchant and the merchant must deal with the warranty service.
A store manager refused to accept my return of a device that died after 2yrs+2 months, which was covered under a 3 year warranty. He said I must deal directly with the manufacturer. I threatened to complain officially and the manager gave in. But then as he was angrily returning money to me, he said he is only required to handle warranty service for the 1st two years and that he is making an exception for me. I figured he was confused because 2 years happens to be the length of the EU implied warranty. I had not heard that it was also a limit of the store’s obligation as an intermediary.
To complicate matters, the product was marked down on liquidation because the store apparently severed ties with that manufacturer. Though I doubt that’s relevant to my situation because it would not void the warranty. But the article also says merchants must accept returns for any reason in the first 14 days, yet the store makes that zero days for liquidated goods. Does that break EU law?
Anyway, I need answers. Maybe I owe the manager a bottle of wine. The EU article indeed confirms sellers must handle warranty returns for up to 2 years. But that’s EU-wide #law. What about #Belgian national law?
Next question, out of curiousity: normally manufacturers have a choice whether to replace, repair or refund. Is that choice passed through to merchants? Or are merchants required to handle this with one instant transaction (thus no repair as the consumer would have to return to the store later)?
I would suggest you contact your local European consumer center. This is exactly what they are there for. The Belgian department is here
https://www.eccbelgium.be/contact
Thanks for the link.
Though I have to say it’s disturbing that an official public service is proxying through Cloudflare (which makes access exclusive). At least I was able to get some info from this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20240325210211/https://www.eccbelgium.be/contact
Wait, what’s wrong with Cloudflare?
Cloudflare is a walled garden that excludes people.
Many would say it’s fair enough if the private sector excludes people because people have an equal right to not patronize private businesses. But when a government has a human rights obligation to serve the whole public, it’s obviously an injustice for some demographics of people to be blocked from access to a public resource that was financed with public money.
Strange. I can access it without problems. What would be the alternative?
Most government deployed websites do not use Cloudflare. I don’t think they choose a different outsourced competitor; they likely insource admins who are proficient with web security.
Some admins use Cloudflare DNS but not the proxy. This enables them to be able to simply and quickly flip a switch on-the-fly when the load exceeds a threshhold. That can also be scripted to happen automatically. Then visitors are not burdened by Cloudflare most of the time. Some admins also know how to configure CF to not block indiscriminantly, but I think that control only available to whitelist the Tor network not the other groups who face discrimination.
The linked article was very informative. The problem they described is that there is no alternative for people banned by cloudflare to access the content of sites shut off by cloudflare. Which, in a developed country, is a minority small and weak enough to ignore them.
Indeed. I wasn’t sure if tja was asking for alternatives for admins or users.
Sometimes the marginalized groups of users can circumvent Cloudflare by finding an archive.org mirror of the blocked page, but that does not always work (and if interactivity is needed it never works). There is a browser plugin which will detect when a user clicks on a Cloudflare link and automatically redirect to archive.org.
Right…ok.