Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

californiaglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 386 posts

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#281

Post by ptero »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #141
ashtonkem wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, the responsibility for chasing down the manufacturer for a refund is shifted onto the retailer, not the consumer.

Yes, and therefore the retailer is incentivised not to sell junk in the first place. The problem with being an "everything store" is that everything also includes an overwhelming majority of crap, looking at you crappy "genuine sony" camera batteries that held about 10 minutes of charge, fulfilled by amazon.

> therefore the retailer is incentivised not to sell junk in the first place.

Most retailers seldom care, as they have agreements and well established paths to dump the cost of returns onto the manufacturer.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#282

Post by grawprog »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #257
kazinator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> went into a retail store with a faulty product and they were to try fob you off saying you need to go to their supplier/wholesaler/manufacturer Far from unheard of, sadly.

It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I'm unsure if they are simply never challenged on this or intentionally mislead their customers while knowing the law. Everyone should know you never have to do an RMA if you don't want to and it's only been 30-90 days.

>It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return.

I've never been refused a return on any product from any brick and mortar store store unless it was for something I was explicitly told was final sale or it was my own fault by losing the receipt or destroying the packaging or something.

I even returned a $500 laptop to a Futureshop the day after getting it after dropping it off my lap onto the carpet and the screen completely dying. There was no hassle and I walked out with a brand new laptop.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#283

Post by criddell »

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

> Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility?

Because the customer has a relationship with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

If this doesn't get overturned, I would expect Amazon to just require anybody who sells through Amazon or supplies Amazon with products to provide indemnification of some sort. Either that or they would just buy insurance to cover payouts due to defective products and their margin would shrink by some tiny amount.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#284

Post by kbenson »

bjustin wrote: post #273
cronix wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually see this from some manufacturers though. A lot say somewhere something like "if you have an issue with this product, DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE...contact us."

The products I see with a plea like this tend to be difficult to set up or use for some reason or other. I always assumed that they have a higher than usual return rate and are trying to reduce that by asking people to call them for support.

Also, I imagine the number of returns a product gets factors into whether stores want to carry it, so reducing that return rate can be important.

Even if the manufacturer refunds/replaces the item, I can see it being better for the manufacturer in some instances. If they are relying on store prominence instead of brand recognition, it's very important that stores want to actually carry those items, and low overhead return could factor into that.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#285

Post by zaarn »

crazygringo wrote: post #274

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Amazon -- or any retailer -- is responsible for injury from defects in the products they sell in the first place. Why is it the retailer's responsibility, rather than the manufacturer's responsibility? No store has the expertise to independently conduct safety testing of every item they sell. That would be ludicrous, whether you're a mom & pop store with 1,000's of items or Amazon its…

In germany, the retailer is responsible for handling defects and warranty. This makes it easier for the customer, as they can just go the store they bought it from and handle it in person or send it to amazon and they have to deal with the manufacturer.

This isn't about safety testing, this simply means that a mom&pop store needs to either trust the manufacturer, buy insurance for defective products or contract with the manufacturer so that they can just send back defective items in bulk at non of their cost. Up to them.

In germany this works perfectly fine with mom&pop stores.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#286

Post by Alex3917 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #256
Alex3917 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair pretty much all thermometers sold everywhere are fake, it's not just Amazon. You really need to look at Consumer Reports or Wirecutter if you want a real one, and who knows if you can even get one right now anyway.

Googling this just comes up with a bunch of one off Chinese scams. I'm really curious, any links to further reading on this? I've never heard of it.

I mean just go through the thermometers you see on Amazon or in your local drug store, and look up the data from the independent tests on their accuracy.

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#287

Post by AnssiH »

yomly wrote: post #232
myself248 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Amazon commingles the inventory from unknown supply chains, how can any of it be called "legitimate"?

Yeah - FBA is actually a really awful attack vector. I hope that they internally are able to track sub-ASIN level inventory, otherwise they have made a fantastic laundering platform.

Yes, they are able to track original sources (by never putting commingled units in the same bin), per seller help pages (and e.g. Amazon comments in this article: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/04/03/1554287401000/Amazon-...).

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#288

Post by katbyte »

gambiting wrote: post #146

Wait, so....previously in the US Amazon wasn't responsible for the products it was selling?? Lol, what? So who was responsible then??

The seller.. who could be some random in a country with no legal framework for recourse

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#289

Post by katbyte »

maurys wrote: post #187

I hear a lot of complaints about counterfeits in Amazon in the US. But not as many back here in India. I've bought electronics, chairs, phones and appliances without too much hassle. Always with fulfilled by Amazon though. I'm curious if the problem is more prevalent in different locations.

In Canada and haven’t had too much an issue, thou im carful with what I order and look for red flags

Re: Amazon Liable for Defective Third-Party Products Rules CA Appellate Court

#290

Post by radicality »

grawprog wrote: post #282
R0b0t1 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I'm unsure if they are simply never challenged on this or intentionally mislead their customers while knowing the law. Everyone should know you never have to do an RMA if you don't want to and it's only been 30-90 days.

>It's typical with most brick and mortar stores to be refused a return. I've never been refused a return on any product from any brick and mortar store store unless it was for something I was explicitly told was final sale or it was my own fault by losing the receipt or destroying the packaging or something. I even returned a $500 laptop to a Futureshop the day after getting it after dropping it off my lap onto the c…

So you damaged the item from your own carelessness and then returned it next day to get a new one? Why did they accept it? Mistakes happen, but why should the store be liable for this? Further, is this not fraud?

This is reminding me of my friend who because of the work-from-home orders wanted a standing desk. He buys one, uses it everyday and then returns it a day before the last return day. He’s on his 5th one now. He absolutely has the money (software engineer). To me that’s outright fraud.

People who abuse return policies likely increase the prices for everyone.

Post reply on HN