Repairs, Warranty and 'acts of god' - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 04:51:01 pm
content: While reading the manual of my new ( 3 week old and already broken ) microwave if found this :"We will not cover damage to the product caused by accident, fire, floods or acts of God"I wonder if that holds up in court ?To file something under 'Act of God' you would need to be able to prove it was indeed God that did it. Which would imply that you need to be able to prove that God does exist...

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 05:07:06 pm
content: Good luck with that.

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 05:11:42 pm
content: Just pile in a bunch of spaghetti into the thing before taking it in for service. Blame it on that guy

author: KaneTW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 06:53:12 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 07:02:31 pm
content: Having your microwave assaulted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster does seem to fall under this category. How could you possibly plan, or prevent that? Well, maybe by keeping the microwave door closed. But, maybe he also just open it anyways with his spaghetti arms.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:03:55 pm
content: A manufacturer of a product would be liable for defects in the manufacture of the product, whether they be in materials or workmanship.How anyone would expect the manufacturer to be liable or responsible for what the buyer did with the product after they bought it is beyond my comprehension.Hey, manufacturer, I took the camera to the beach and a wave came and washed it away. Send me another camera. What kind of thinking is that?Under what legal doctrine or even common sense would the seller be liable for what the buyer did with the product?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:28:40 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 05, 2019, 04:51:01 pmLol, no. You don't need to prove that God exists because everyone knows God exists. The defendant only needs to demonstrate that the damage is consistent with what only God is normally known to cause.

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:34:19 pm
content: Quote from: magic on June 05, 2019, 11:28:40 pmWho exactly is this "everyone" you speak of? Better make it at least "everyone - 1" for me.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:49:47 pm
content: It is the legal concept of vis major that is applied in many countries. It basically covers any rare event that couldn't be foreseen or prevented, and that wasn't caused by any contract party. "Acts of God" only applies to events that weren't caused by humans. It seems oddly specific to only exclude them from the warranty conditions. Will they replace a microwave that got vandalized by a angry mob?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on June 05, 2019, 11:49:47 pmWhere did you get the notion only acts of God were excluded?If I say i am not paying for dinner, does that mean I have to pay for everything else that is not dinner?

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2019, 11:57:57 pm
content: For myself at least, I'm fully aware of the concept and understand what it entails. I just personally think the phrase is funny. It could be replaced with "Acts of Sky Fairies", "Acts of Vishnu", "Acts of Zenu", etc and I would still think the phrase is funny. Personally, I think just saying we don't warranty our product against natural disasters would get the point across all the same. But, the phrase has been around for a while now, and it is what it is.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 12:05:15 am
content: Quote from: magic on June 05, 2019, 11:28:40 pmCan you show some case where a manufacturer was held liable for "accident, fire, floods or acts of God"?I don't think so.In the USA sales are covered by theUCC section 2. You can look it up and see if you find any part which would make a seller liable.The courts enforce the laws as they are written.I have no idea why anyone would think the manufacturer would be liable. It is completely at odds with reality.

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 12:09:34 am
content: Personally I thought the original poster was asking the question as a philosophical joke, because they found it funny that this was specifically pointed out in their warranty. Now, I could be wrong, but nothing in the original post made me believe they were being serious. This is what insurance is for after all. Maybe subtle humor like this doesn't translate well...Edit: I asked my wife to read it. She also thinks they are completely joking about this. Not that this proves anything except Americans are strange though...Edit Edit: My wife wanted me to point out that she is technically a French citizen that lives in America. Not sure how that makes her case stronger though...

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 12:40:49 am
content: I have heard of that "act of god" excuse being used by home and care insurance and delays in air travel.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 07:04:26 pm
content: no i am dead serious. seriously. no joke.I am following the letter of the law here in my reasoning.If they write off something as 'act of god'. They need to be able to prove that is indeed an act of god. And for that premise god must exist.let me alter the sentence a bit.Damage due to an Act of your Sister. Would only work if i have a sister. My sister must exist for this to work. If i tell them 'i have no sister' they could come up with proof (birth certificate , or get my sister to show up in court) i do indeed have a sister.Now back to the originalDamage due to act of god. Works only if there is a god. If i state : there is no god, they need to come up with proof there is one... birth certificate, send him a court summons, whatever.This has been successfully done by the way. Some lawyer sued for damage due to lightning. Since God did not turn up he won by default. Of course getting paid the claimed damages was also an issue... where do you send the invoice ?The wording of that clause is the problem. 'act of god'if it would say natural disaster ( floods, lighting , earthquake ) it would be clear. but 'act of god' is like a catch all phrase that is vague enough they can shovel whatever they want under there.A butterfly flapped its wings in Australia altering wind patterns just enough to deviate a big cloud and cause a flood in Portugal. Well, prove it !Anyway. This thing started because is was reading the warranty clauses on a microwave i bought. Microwave was installed 26 days ago. Broke on day 27. After contacting manufacturer they reported that machine had been manufactured june of 2016.... So it sat on a shelf for 3 years. Note : this particular model is still in production today and will be for another couple of years. It's not exactly a cheap throwaway model (costs 700+ US$ microwave/convection combo in over-the-range style) .After a lot of calling between the vendor and the manufacturer they agreed to take it back under the 30 day satisfaction clause, and get me one that was more recently produced. I just got one of the early runs.I don't want that. I want one built in the last 3 months so it has all the upgrades and fixes. If it were made 3 to 9 months ago i would have had it fixed, but 3 year sitting on a shelf is way too long ... I want a newer version.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 07:13:18 pm
content: The Man Who Sued God...https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 07:27:14 pm
content: I think you need to return to Europe. None of this 30 day crap. Two year warranty from seller, no missing around and in most cases.An Act of God is what your company lawyers hope happened each time a customer has a self driving accident!

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 07:47:14 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 07:04:26 pmI was afraid of that.As has been explained. "Act of God" is a legal term of art and if you use your reasoning in court you would be laughed out of the room.Just like sovereign citizens and other bozos who think they can use their brilliant reasoning to defeat the judicial system and the state.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 08:06:30 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 06, 2019, 07:47:14 pmIt's not about me using the term. It is about insurance companies using it to not have to pay up.Let's consider these hypothetical ( actually not so hypothetical as it did happen) casesAssume i live downhill from a man-made dam holding a huge reservoir. After a few weeks of on stop rain the dam bursts and my house is destroyed. I have flood insurance but ' Oh we won't pay. it's an act of god.'well prove it ! long rains happen all the time. The dam was poorly designed as it did not have a proper overflow mechanism and it was not properly maintained. ( this happened last year here in california. a dam burst and the spillway washed away deviating the waterflow into a populated area. )Same thing with the big forest fires. Act of god. dry spells end the likes. Not really. poorly maintained power grid caused the fire. Thousands lost their homes and hundreds died. No shoving that on 'act of go'. Just poor maintenance.That's what my question is about. If an insurance company wants to shove something under 'act of god', does that really hold up in court ? That is my question. And it is a serious question. If they want to claim it is an act of god , they must be able to prove it. Logical reasoning says that, for it to be an act of god there must be a god. So , please produce proof.

author: Dundarave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 08:57:40 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 08:06:30 pmAt the end of the day, a warranty or insurance policy is simply a contract between two parties, enforceable by the civil laws of the jurisdiction it was created in. If a party to a contract wishes to bring the power of the state to enforce it, they bring it before a judge, who first uses any appropriate statute law (legislated law) followed by “common law” , or commonly-adopted civil law that acts in the absence of legislation, in order to adjudicate the conflict.So it’s up to the judge to look at the contract and determine what “acts of God” means. If there is no legislation that definitively covers it, they fall back to “common law”, i.e. what every judge in their jurisdiction going back hundreds of years has defined as “acts of God”.So regardless of today’s questioning of the existence of God, the precedent set in history carries on today.And because both judges and insurance companies appear to be comfortable with the wording, and there appears to be no question in the courts about what the phrase ultimately means after hundreds of years of litigation of such contracts, then I’d say it’s pointless to try to argue something different.So to answer your question directly: yes, if the contract refers to “an act of God”, and a judge agrees, based on the decisions of all the other judges who have gone before him/her, then it will “hold up in court”.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 09:00:35 pm
content: In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible.What part of that do you not understand?I don't know how old you are but you should learn that you do not get to define the meaning of terms. The world is not going to adapt to your views and playing word games is not going to get you anywhere in a courtroom.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 09:34:30 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 06, 2019, 09:00:35 pmlike i said : it has been done a number of times and a number of times it has been won. So there is precedent.If you'd call it a 'natural disaster' i could accept that.Act of god ? that implies existences of said entity. And then , which one of them is responsible ? There are so many . Just because you might adhere to the Abrahamic god , who's to say it wasn't a Hindu, or even an ancient Greek, Roman or Egyptian one that fancies to make a bit of a comeback ?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:03:07 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 09:34:30 pmit is a legal term, would it be better if they had named it "stuff happens that you can't blame on any human" in latin?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:03:50 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 09:34:30 pmYeah, sure. A judge ruled it could not be an Act of God because the existence of God could not be proven. Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Carry on.Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 09:34:30 pmJust because you say so doesn't make it so.I sometimes wonder about people who argue with the reality that surrounds them, just refusing to accept it. The sovereign citizens that believe a few magic words will isolate them from the authority of the state. They argue with the cops by the roadside and end up tasered, beat up and taken to jail. But, by golly, they continue to refuse to accept the world does not work the way they think it should.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:10:50 pm
content: So you take the matter to court. If the court decides there is no God then the Bible you swore on at the beginning of the show would therefore contain falsehoods. Wouldn’t your swearing on it to tell the whole truth be invalid, as would millions of other people before you?

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 09:34:30 pmI know your being serious, but this had me about falling out of my chair laughing. I agree with you pretty much. It is absolutely impossible to prove the existence of a god. A book written by a bunch of humans a couple thousands years ago is certainly no evidence of the fact. Nor is a bunch of statues, murals, or things in tablets. They need to drop the word god from anything having to do with legal currency, laws, etc.

author: JxR
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:17:34 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on June 06, 2019, 10:10:50 pmThere is absolutely no legal requirement to swear on a bible. It is just tradition. This pertains to the US at least. I have no idea what other countries do.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2019, 10:36:56 pm
content: Quote from: JxR on June 06, 2019, 10:14:36 pmNot only that. What we know as the Kind James bible is largely made up and bears limited resemblance to older versions of the bible like the Greek and Aramaic texts.They tweaked it so the ruling class in England would get tighter control over the population ,and eliminate the power of certain religious groups.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 02:00:32 am
content: Quote from: soldar on June 06, 2019, 09:00:35 pmYeah, but trying to change some of the views of these people on a forum could be seen as just as pointless. You see it often here where it is claimed the people here are logical technical engineering types. But you also see so many debates over small differences argued out in public with absolutely religious fervor. What are ya gonna do?We may have a diminished need of the construct of gods today to explain the natural world but the cultural baggage will burden us for quite a while to come. We have the clause " Force Majeure" available.https://legalvision.com.au/force-majeure-clause/

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 03:57:36 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 06, 2019, 10:36:56 pmIf that were actually so, the ruling class would have changed it to something that supported their own ideas. As it is, the King James Bible (and others) flatly contradicts many of the teachings of the Church of England. For example, in Ecclesiastes 9 verse 5 and 10 it says that when a person dies they are not conscious of anything, nonexistent, kaput. No punishment, no reward. The ruling class from royalty down would like the population to believe that God himself put them in their high and low positions respectively, and to go against that was taking a stand against God, therefore risking everlasting punishment. The fact that the Bible says that everlasting punishment is nonsense is something that this ruling class would have changed had they been able.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 08:07:14 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on June 07, 2019, 02:00:32 am"force majeure" is different from "acts of God"

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 11:22:50 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on June 07, 2019, 08:07:14 amWhy make me ask? How?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 11:35:25 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on June 07, 2019, 11:22:50 amAct of god is a subset of Force Majeure. An Earthquake is both. A labor strike or a civil war or revolution is not an Act of God but it is Force Majeure.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 02:03:09 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 07, 2019, 11:35:25 amYeah. OK that makes sense.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 03:41:09 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 07, 2019, 11:35:25 amSee, Force maJeure i can accept. Labor strikes, civil war , revolution. that is all clear and well defined and you can point at the origins. Humans. we all know those exist and what they are capable of.Earthquakes, tornadoes are geological and atmospherical occurrences. Perfectly clear. Natural disaster.So what exactly could be an 'act of god' then ?Lightning strike ? no , that's an atmosperical electrical discharge.Meteor shower ? Those come form space. clear and well cut.I am simply intrigued as what is legally classified as 'act of god' and how far that rabbit hole goes.They could just as well put in a clause 'act of extraterrestrials'. Just like 'act of god' you can neither prove nor disprove that. Up till now both are still a matter of 'belief'. We have seen or detected neither.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 04:04:51 pm
content: Simple, thats so called an "exitescape clause" ...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 04:27:37 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on June 07, 2019, 04:04:51 pmExactly ! And that's what this all about.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 04:56:05 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on June 07, 2019, 02:00:32 amAll the international agreements and contracts I was involved so far had a "force majeure" clause. Never seen something like "act of god". I'd guess the manual's fine print was written by a non-lawyer.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 06:38:47 pm
content: Act of God is a term of art in the Common Law and derived law systems. You will probably not find it in other law systems.

author: LateLesley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 07:10:05 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on June 06, 2019, 07:13:18 pmDamn! I was just about to post that, when I seen your reply!

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 07:28:31 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 07, 2019, 03:41:09 pmAnything that´s not their liability and not the liability of someone else.When it comes to liablity, people tend to set up rings of deferred responsibility, either because of complexity or because they are emotional at the level of a 10 year old, or because everyone else does it - this can be found everywhere, preferrably in scandals.You can only break through that when you can define a sharp line of what you are and are not responsible for.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 08:03:29 pm
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on June 07, 2019, 07:28:31 pmNot quite.Again:QuoteIt is an event outside of human control but I can get flood (earthquake, tornado, etc) insurance and the insurance company would be liable for the damages I suffered.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2019, 09:10:28 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 07, 2019, 08:03:29 pmFor insurance policies it apparently is defined as "any event that occurs outside of human control and that can't be predicted or prevented. The term is roughly analogous to a natural disaster.Things like earthquakes, severe weather and floods are all considered acts of God. Additionally, the root cause of damage is what's considered: a fire caused by poor wiring is not an act of God, but one caused by a lightning strike is.But policies don;t use the wording 'ct of god'. they spell out what is and what is not covered ( flooding , earthquake often require additional policies and are not covered by generic homeowners or car )if a windstorm blows over a tree that damages home or car : covered, unless they can prove the tree was rotten and should have been removed.So i guess when it comes to appliance manufacturers warranty the same is applicable. Fair enough. If my house floods i am not going to claim warranty on my microwave.When reading the warranty policy i found that to be such a strange clause. Being originally from Belgium i had never seen that kind of statement before.It is strange to me that the judicial system would recognize something that is not proven to exists ... ( doesn't matter if it is god or extraterrestrial aliens) After all i could claim my microwave broke because of midiclorians (LOL , spellchecker suggested Floridians) or wakalixies or invisible pink unicorns or the gravitational pull of Russels teapot (although that you could measure or go and see if it is there, albeit impractical) . You can't prove those don't exist or do exist either.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 03:00:17 am
content: Look: it’s simply a legal phrase that exists and that you cannot dissect, because it has an established, well understood legal meaning in countries based on English common law. Think of it as nothing more than a verbal shortcut for the excellent, accurate descriptions soldar has already given.Quote from: madires on June 07, 2019, 04:56:05 pmNope. Since it’s a well-understood legal term, it’s seen commonly in legal documents in USA.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2019, 07:23:22 am
content: Now that is settled we can go on to discuss how and why a cereal calledGrape-Nutshas neither grapes nor nuts.Or why if peanut oil is made with peanuts and olive oil is made with olives why they allow Baby Oil to be made with something else than babies.Or why hats made in Ecuador are calledPanama hats.Or why a bird that originates in the Americas is called a turkey.Or why we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 03:38:52 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 09, 2019, 07:23:22 amindians !

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 04:35:12 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 09, 2019, 07:23:22 amYes and being strongly atheist doesn't give you the right to change the definition of words, just as a Christian doesn't get to define terms such as marriage.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 09:50:41 pm
content: It wasn't Christians who invented marriage and it never meant what you seem to imply it does. That's exactly a case of artificially redefining old, established concepts. And (in some places in the world) it suceeded

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2019, 11:40:00 pm
content: Quote from: magic on June 10, 2019, 09:50:41 pmIndeed, most cultures have some form of marriage and its meaning changes over time. The Christians were very good at “re-purposing” local traditions into modified Christian versions. Another famous example is Christmas which was originally a pagan celebration of the winter solstice and the return of the sun, but the Christians turned it into Jesus birthday.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 08:22:05 am
content: Well, this thread took a sudden, sharp turn.So we can say marriage is an "Act of God"? Or "Act of the Devil"?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 08:34:18 am
content: Quote from: soldar on June 11, 2019, 08:22:05 amWell, if done right, a marriage could be an Act of Dog:

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 10:00:31 pm
content: Quote from: apis on June 10, 2019, 11:40:00 pmJust like the christmas tree is a pagan fertility symbol .

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 10:04:32 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 11, 2019, 08:22:05 amneither. It is a concept invented by humans that now seems to be legally defined.I'm ok if you want to believe in one (or more) god(s) , just keep his business out of my business. He (She / neutral , who says it is a male , or even has a gender. ) is part of a BELIEF system. Such system can not be universally applied or enforced. It is up to the subscribers of such a system to follow its rules. They can not impose those rules on non-subscribers.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 10:51:34 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 11, 2019, 10:04:32 pmseems to me marriage has always been a legal construct, defining who inherits who etc.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2019, 11:12:01 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 11, 2019, 10:04:32 pmThat sounds like one particularly unfounded belief system, surely belief systems are very effective at imposing their rules on non-subscribers. You don't even need to look far for examples, no matter where in the entire world you live.What are liberals realistically going to do about belief systems whose adherents reproduce more and aren't actually scared of fighting?