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

John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#121

Post by jareklupinski »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #107
Dead_Lemon wrote: post #101

It surprised me that farmers aren't just ditching John Deere for alternatives that respect them. Visiting family on their farm in the early 2000's, they had been selling off their John Deere tractors and replacing them with Massey Ferguson, because they were annoyed with the poor servicing and parts delivery they had with their local shop/dealership. Way before this right to repair stuff happened.

I don't think other modern tractors behave differently to be honest. Deere probably cost a premium in comparison, but I think many farmers lease their work devices today anyway. But yes, if they would own it, a right to repair would be very welcomed... If you see a modern tractor on the streets next to a Ferrari, the tractor is probably the more luxurious and expensive vehicle.

yea, the tractor is a lambo

https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#122

Post by anenefan »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #107
Dead_Lemon wrote: post #101

It surprised me that farmers aren't just ditching John Deere for alternatives that respect them. Visiting family on their farm in the early 2000's, they had been selling off their John Deere tractors and replacing them with Massey Ferguson, because they were annoyed with the poor servicing and parts delivery they had with their local shop/dealership. Way before this right to repair stuff happened.

I don't think other modern tractors behave differently to be honest. Deere probably cost a premium in comparison, but I think many farmers lease their work devices today anyway. But yes, if they would own it, a right to repair would be very welcomed... If you see a modern tractor on the streets next to a Ferrari, the tractor is probably the more luxurious and expensive vehicle.

I think a lot of people get the impression of DIY repair - but most tractors can be serviced entirely or if not most repairs via a third party mechanic / appropriate workshop.

I have surfed (I used to research stuff for various people) many tractor forums over the years but don't really recall too many details, but ever after a number of years, one of the things that stuck in my mind was one USoA farmer's account of the over the top gouging practices that JD was running with. Basically the newish JD was serviced by a third party mechanic, new parts installed correctly and verified ... but it would not run until they paid $$$$ for a JD tech to drive out to their location, plug in their simple special tool to unlock the system so the tractor could start and get to work.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#123

Post by kalleboo »

gambiting wrote: post #98
M95D wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In EU, a product such as this would have a 2 year minimum warranty. How long was yours?

Again, it's a misconception(and I'm from the EU). EU law guarantees that for 2 years from purchase(it's actually 6 on most items) the seller has to fix any issues that arise from manufacturing faults . In the first 6 months of ownership, any fault is automatically presumed to be a manufacturing fault, after 6 months the buyer has to prove that it is. That is not the same as a warranty, if your laptop randomly stops w…

The example of a lawnmower fuel gauge only lasting for 6 months due to a non-replaceable battery would definitely fall under the durability/repairability clause. It would count as a defect that existed at the point of manufacturing, not that it sounds like that even matters.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

> In order for goods to be in conformity, they should possess the durability which is normal for goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect given the nature of the specific goods, including the possible need for reasonable maintenance of the goods, such as the regular inspection or changing of filters in a car

> Given that when implementing Directive 1999/44/EC, a large majority of Member States have provided for a period of two years, and in practice that period is considered reasonable by market participants, that period should be maintained.

> For a period of one year, or for a period of two years if Member States choose to apply a two-year period, the consumer should only need to prove that the good is not in conformity, without also needing to prove that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#124

Post by gambiting »

mhitza wrote: post #114
gambiting wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it's a misconception(and I'm from the EU). EU law guarantees that for 2 years from purchase(it's actually 6 on most items) the seller has to fix any issues that arise from manufacturing faults . In the first 6 months of ownership, any fault is automatically presumed to be a manufacturing fault, after 6 months the buyer has to prove that it is. That is not the same as a warranty, if your laptop randomly stops w…

> EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers... Unless there is something I'm missing on consumer protection legislation. I've seen in the…

You're not missing anything. The key is this sentence "If the product you sold turns out to be faulty — or doesn't look or work as advertised — within the timeframe of the legal guarantee" - it's only when the product "turns out to be faulty" meaning - it has a manufacturing defect. It's defined exactly in the text of the legislation, would need to dig it out. If the product doesn't have a manufacturing defect, it "just" stops working at 23 months mark, the seller isn't legally required to fix it, unless you can prove that it's due to a manufacturing defect.

>> I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee.

The sellers have to provide that guarantee against manufacturing defects for a minimum of 2 years, correct. Manufacturers can provide any length they like as they aren't the seller(in some cases and with some products they are legally bound as well, but it's not for everything - cars for instance have their own set of rules which bind the manufacturer not just the seller).

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#126

Post by not_kurt_godel »

laughing_man wrote: post #66
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we're saying is consumer action is enough to solve this problem. Citation needed

Is it? You've never been to a grocery store?

I have not been to a grocery store that sells "Deere-brand Large Ag Equipment"[0] - aka $200k-1M John Deere tractors/harvesters/combines - that are the subject of the settlement. Have you?

[0]: https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/gov.uscourts.i...

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#127

Post by laughing_man »

gambiting wrote: post #99
laughing_man wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't buy their stuff" is exactly the right answer. You need to do your research before you buy big ticket items. It may not be true in every sector, but Deere has plenty of competition.

Please tell us - if you were buying one of these, would you specifically research how the fuel gauge works? Be honest.

Of course not. But I would definitely find out what kind of problems people are having.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#128

Post by laughing_man »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #126
laughing_man wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? You've never been to a grocery store?

I have not been to a grocery store that sells "Deere-brand Large Ag Equipment"[0] - aka $200k-1M John Deere tractors/harvesters/combines - that are the subject of the settlement. Have you? [0]: https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/gov.uscourts.i...

My point is "competition works".

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#129

Post by shiroiuma »

9rx wrote: post #85
shiroiuma wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check out Kubota stuff.

I considered one for my last tractor purchase. The depreciation on them is hard to square. Units are selling or 1/3 of the original price with only a few hundred hours on them.

Why not pick up one of these barely-used units for cheap then?

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#130

Post by b112 »

b112 wrote: post #116
pjjpo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a fun anecdote and not doubting it at all. So just wondering how that max comes into play > Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. While I haven't bought a tractor before from some searching and impression they seem much higher. If fair market value is that low, I can see how 1) works but if for 2 it caps out at $30K, it doesn't se…

Tractor? The comment I am replying to was for a lawn mower.

Clarity, I see I wrote tractor above once. Here lawn mowers are often called lawn tractors.
Post reply on HN