Max Power":1cp1ivmg said:
Do you provide a guarantee on your locks? Does that guarantee cover third parties undertaking work on them and replacing parts? Why do you you say Everest are being untruthful to say that the warranty will be void in such a situation, I think you will find that that is exactly the case and you would be wrong to advise a customer otherwise
I'd hope, in this context, a double glazing company's argument wouldn't stand up in court.
Warranty disputes rarely get that far, because they usually have so many escape clauses they're legally not worth the paper they are written on, but this sort of thing just might, because of the money involved...
... say a double-glazing company are warranting some aspect(s) of their product to last for a specific time. If that includes the lock and it's broken by a criminal, it's the action of the Reasonable Man in such circumstances (a break-in) to get the lock repaired quickly by someone competent to do it. It might be a requirement of their household insurance, in any case.
Whilst it's also obviously reasonable that a double glazing firm can't warrant a lock they didn't fit, that has no bearing on the durability of their double-glazing panels (or it shouldn't). A court might consider the warranty to be subsequently limited to the materials and work the original company provided, but not wholly overturned by one small component being changed on a like-for-like basis by a competent person, because...
... if any double glazing firm charged a hefty premium price, with an awe-inspiring warranty included, the hefty premium would have been in part the cost of the warranty ("... surely that wasn't
all profit, sir?"). The householder wasn't just buying the double glazing and its installation, but also implicitly that the installation would remain fully functional for at least the warranty period, any faults being remedied by the installer (obligations such as cleaning and oiling, etc. being symmetrically imposed on the householder).
The purchase was for double glazing, installation,
and longevity, hence the high price. If that somehow
wasn't the case, the court might be expected to have little sympathy with any company that was price gouging and trying to avoid any warranty obligations.
Consumer law doesn't equate only to contract law as it once did: consumers, in this case purchasers of double glazing products, have the law weighted in their favour, the assumption being that they have fewer resources than the firms they buy from so it would otherwise be unfair. Courts expect firms to behave fairly and for contract terms to be reasonable. Voiding an entire warranty,
under these circumstances, isn't fair.
A simple question would probably be asked in court, such as, "What effect did changing the lock have on your double glazing panel seals?"
If the lock replacement wasn't like-for-like, or the locksmith wasn't properly competent, or the replacement involved a lot of components, then that's an entirely different matter.
E.
PS: It's a couple of decades since I did a law course! I can't find you case law, but there are lawyers on here who (a) probably could, and (b) will, I hope, correct me if I've misunderstood the current state of play. EU law is developing in favour of the consumer too, quite dramatically, e.g. the recent six-year obligation placed on manufacturers to rectify defects.