Compaq accused of bullying customers over warranties
No sooner has it got rid of one class-action lawsuit than Compaq gets hit
with another two. This time they involve allegations of warranty bullying
tactics.
The suits, filed in state court in Beaumont, Texas, by the law offices of
Wayne Reaud, concern the PC maker's iPaq Pocket PC handhelds and iPac and
Presario computers.
They allege Compaq "systematically defrauds consumers through their express
warranty procedures and knowingly denies consumers implied warranty rights,"
according to a statement from Wayne Reaud today.
The first case, Pope v. Compaq, accuses Compaq of making customers sign
release forms when computers are replaced or customers receive a refund
through its one-year express warranty.
These forms make the customer promise to keep all information secret,
including any faults with the machine - or they risk losing the computer and
getting stung with a lawsuit from Compaq.
The suit wants to force Compaq to scrap the signed releases idea.
Wayne Reaud is part of Orgain, Bell & Tucker, the same lawyers that forced
Toshiba to shell out more than $2 billion in a settlement over faulty floppy
disk drives in 1999. The law firm claims it has heard from many
"dissatisfied customers who are fed up with Compaq's tactics".
The statement cites one customer who had to wait six months to get a product
they could use, but was told they would receive it only if they signed the
form agreeing not to discuss the situation.
"Compaq is not standing behind their products and is attempting to bully its
customers into keeping their mouths shut about the problems they are
having," said Patrick Woodson, a representative of the plaintiffs.
The second case, Albanese vs. Compaq, alleges Compaq
misleads customers about their rights, and violates federal
law by excluding all implied warranty rights. In the US
companies can limit, but not exclude, implied warranty
rights for products.
The lawyers want to get customers their full four-year
implied warranty rights back.
"These cases are about forcing Compaq to stop
short-changing customers who are getting stuck with
defective products," said Woodson. "These are deceptive
practices, they are wrong and they need to stop."
Last month a US District Judge dismissed a lawsuit
brought by Reaud against Compaq, which alleged the
vendor had for years knowingly sold machines with
dodgy floppy disk drives. �
moo.
"JOHN METCOW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Compaq accused of bulling customers over warranties[snip]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 06:36:20 -0500, "David Karr"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>moo.
LOL :)
Andre
On Thu, 10 May 2001 06:36:20 -0500, "David Karr"
>moo.
LOL :)
Andre
JOHN METCOW <[email hidden]> wrote on 10 May 2001:
[Heaven knows why I'm answering this, seeing as how I'm not in the US,
so (thank God) things like the utterly barking DMCA don't apply, but
still...]
<snip>
>These forms make the customer promise to keep all information
>secret, including any faults with the machine - or they risk losing
>the computer and getting stung with a lawsuit from Compaq.
As far as I'm aware, this sort of thing would be illegal in the UK
under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. (IANAL and all that, though.)
>The second case, Albanese vs. Compaq, alleges Compaq
>misleads customers about their rights, and violates federal
>law by excluding all implied warranty rights. In the US
>companies can limit, but not exclude, implied warranty
>rights for products.
Not sure what an "implied right" is, but in the UK we have "statutory
rights", which mean for example that you are entitled to a refund (not
just a repair or exchange) on a defective product, and that products
must be of a "merchantable quality". It is illegal to exclude these
rights, and any such exclusion in a warranty has no force.
To follow on from this, I think (as do some British PC magazines) there
might be a fair case in a UK court for claiming that the average
software licence agreement is illegal under the aforementioned Unfair
Contract Terms Act (and possibly the Sale of Goods Act as well), as it
*does* exclude merchantability, but then has a get-out clause at the
end of the "any part found to be unenforceable..." type. NO-one's yet
risked their money on a case, though.
--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.02)
The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.
