Earlier quoted context omitted.
If $80 is enough to purchase, say, 2-3 years of extra warranty, then it's a fair amount.
That is a mostly reasonable comment but has one assumption and another important implication: 1) Assumption: Extended warranties are available for these appliances that would cover the expected usable lifetime of the dishwasher plus the extra purchase 2-3 year warranty. This assumption is incorrect. Lifespan for something like this would, formally, fall under the category of durable goods. In this case, the expected…
No. My assumption was the manufacturer warranty plus the extended warranty should be close to the expected lifespan. I believe 10 years is a stretch for a $500 dishwasher, so 2 years manufacturer warranty + 3 years of extended warranty sounds fair.
> 2) Implication: The implication of your comment is that consumers should bear the cost of errors that are sufficient enough to warrant a class action lawsuit, and pay for such errors in the form of an extended warranty.
Not really. I meant that if $80 buys you your expected lifespan (we disagree on the duration but bear with me) then a $80 refund is fair within the scope of current consumer laws in the US. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for the consumer.
What happens where I live (Australia) is much better. The manufacturer warranty means zilch, and anything you buy should work for a reasonable lifespan (statutory warranty). If your dishwasher with a 2 year manufacturer warranty breaks after 25 months you simply call the shop and claim your statutory warranty. The "reasonable lifespan" is debatable, but it is longer than the manufacturer warranty in most cases.