HDTV Forum

"The manufacturer is only required to repair it at no charge to you under warranty and provide parts to the service center for a period of 7 years."

Richard, this is a myth. There is no requirement for manufacturers to back stock parts. We live in a mass-produced, throw away culture. Polaroid has no parts supply and admits that you are on your own if one of their TV's fails outside of warranty. Have you read this? http://hdguru.com/?p=107

I couldn't get a part as simple as a power supply for a 5 year old Teac CD recorder. It was a nice unit with unique features and I had to shit-can it. I had a 5 year old Panasonic HDTV that was useless when the video board went out. I work at a store with a good service department and they couldn't find the replacement board anywhere.

This problem is only going to get worse, and our landfills are going to be filled with TV's, computers, and other electronics that aren't very old. It is a shame, but it is one of the results of mass production in 3rd world countries combined with an international economy. Parts are supplied by multiple vendors all over the world and assembled in other countries. The labor to build the products is low, but a skilled technician like you needs to make a living diagnosing the problem. It ends of costing more to fix many products than it does to replace them. And that is if parts are available.

LewBob

This post has been left intact because the information provided is relevant. To be clear, a federal law requiring parts availability does not exist.

Richard, this is a myth.

It's not a myth, it's a law and it used to be 10 years but was changed in the early 90's.

It sure seems like a simple law and as I recall the law really is that simple leaving it to the consumer to enforce it and the courts to decide how to apply it.

As with all laws the first place to start is damages and that is where the loophole resides. If I buy a $50 DVD player and it breaks under warranty or out of warranty and can

Richard, Thanks for the reply. Exactly what statute is it that requires a company to maintain parts for seven years? I explored this a few years ago and came to the conclusion that it was a myth. Don't worry about my Panasonic. Fortunately I had bought a five year extended warranty so I was covered by the warranty company. LewBob

PS, This is a new thread!

Did you read the HDGuru article that I attached a link to? He claims that Polaroid told him that they offer no out of warranty support for their TV's. That sounds like the basis for a class action suit if the law you speak of really exists.

The Magnuson-Moss Act requires manufacturers to be clear in the terms of their warranties, but I don't believe it says anything about providing parts. LewBob

This post has been left intact because the information provided is relevant. To be clear, a federal law requiring parts availability does not exist.

I don't know what statute it is but it is a federal law.

The reason I ask about your older TV is because it may very well be that it did not need to go the landfill. There are retailers in my area with service departments running around giving estimates to replace a board that is not or never was available when that board could be repaired to component level or worse yet the manufacturer NEVER PROVIDED A BOARD because it was SUPPOSED TO BE COMPONENT LEVEL REPAIR.

I would hate to think your TV is in a landfill because of that...

Yes, I have read that article and you are correct! Now go find everybody with damages and figure out how the lawyer is going to be paid in the interm...

That is one of the main reasons for state consumer protection laws - to be able to enforce a reasonable expectation without requiring unreasonable means to make it happen.

My set didn't go to a land fill. It was a multi-scan TV and the 480i inputs worked fine, so I gave it to a shelter that wanted a TV. Thanks for asking. I was glad that I could find a home for it. LewBob

I know of no federal law that requires parts availability but several states have them.

See this link:

http://www.nesda.com/consumers/parts.html

I didn't think so. Richard, I don't see Georgia on the list! BTW, this means that companies that do work something out for the consumer when parts aren't available are really good guys. I have seen Mitsubishi do this a number of times.

One of the crazy things is the requirement of some of the state laws is the availabilty of parts for a given number of years after the sale. Some [parts] could sit around on shelves for years before they are finally sold. That is unfair to the manufacturer. LewBob

Hey lewbobski, changed a word in your post from products to parts assuming that is what you meant. Let me know if you really meant products...

I did go into major research mode over the last number of days and was preparing to remove my calf and foot from my mouth. Thanks Leonard for the link, you beat me to it...

Lewbobski, you are correct - it is a myth!

Most myths and legends are tied to some event that has been misconstrued and that is what I cannot find. What I have found is that most of us think this law exists so I am in good company over my career. Nearly all information concerning parts availability relates to the automotive industry. At the FTC all I could find about electronic parts was one case concerning Kodak decades ago related to their decision to stop providing parts to independent service centers for repairing copy machines. An interesting case and outcome, Kodak won, that many still do not agree with since it has been used as precedence in other cases. In the Kodak case the FTC was far more concerned about the ability to control markets, monopoly, and how that affects consumers rather than protecting the free market ability to get the product serviced by independent servicers, not just Kodak. The FTC believed that the Kodak copier business was not large enough to enforce a monopoly on the consumer. There were other arguments related to patent because that was the legal stance Kodak was taking to affirm it's right to not sell the parts.

What I have found is numerous statements that make it clear the FTC believes in the power of free markets and if a manufacturer is doing something that the consuming public thinks is wrong they will lose their market position and business if they don't correct the problem. No manufacturer is required to provide a warranty on their product yet the FTC also points out that sales may be difficult without one.

It appears the key ingredient to any case one would have against a manufacturer relates to: the product must be of normal durability, considering its nature and price.

Any consumer rights or consumer protection law has been left to the states so check your consumer affairs department for yours.

Interesting reading for those who want to know more...

Federal Trade Commission
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/bus ... ranty.shtm

I provide this quote for two reasons. The first is the legal term and time frame of a recall which for electronics comes in the form of class action lawsuits and that appears to be covered in the following. Another is the statement of how long a product should last.

Generally, there is no specified duration for implied warranties under state laws. However, the state statutes of limitations for breach of either an express or an implied warranty are generally four years from date of purchase. This means that buyers have four years in which to discover and seek a remedy for problems that were present in the product at the time it was sold. It does not mean that the product must last for four years. It means only that the product must be of normal durability, considering its nature and price.