> I doubt very much that will happen. They are legally obliged
> to supply ink for at least 5 years after the product is
> dropped. The 8450 is still available for sale.
> actually, I am not so sure on this.... I think the term is 'For a
> reasonable period of time"
>
> who decides..... the judge!
used to be 7 years. Now I do believe it is 5.
But, chief: the 8450 is STILL available new and part
of the current HP's range. It MUST have supplies of ink.
Period.
No need for a judge. Ah, and Fair Trading
is enough for this sort of thing.
Just to be on the fair side: my Epson Stylus Photo 700
had ink available for it for the 6 years I kept it.
Regardless of it being out of manufacture after
the first 2. You can still get ink for it now. And it
is a dedicated container: it only fits that model.
There is no way I'll believe HP is "dropping a line
of colour": that's just sheer, pure, unadulterated FUD
from some dishonest retailer.
> I had a customer with a kodak Ls755.... needed parts 12 months after
> purchase.... no parts, outa luck!
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> think this is the tendancy of electronic companies more than actual
> camera companies.... of course this does not include kodak!
Of course! After all, they dropped Kodachrome, the bastards!...
;-)
But I'd be tempted to take them to FT and court if they
tried that on me: the law is very clear and doesn't give
a hoot if this is an electronic company or not.
kosh - 17 Feb 2007 00:14 GMT
>>I had a customer with a kodak Ls755.... needed parts 12 months after
>>purchase.... no parts, outa luck!
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> tried that on me: the law is very clear and doesn't give
> a hoot if this is an electronic company or not.
actually I started researching it on behalf of the customer as it is
completely unacceptable.
Funnily enough the customer let it slide.... after only 12 months I
would have personally pursued it!
that's where I got the 'reasonable period' info from the ACCC.
kosh
Noons - 17 Feb 2007 12:41 GMT
> actually I started researching it on behalf of the customer as it is
> completely unacceptable.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> that's where I got the 'reasonable period' info from the ACCC.
out of curiosity, when was that?
kosh - 18 Feb 2007 00:19 GMT
>>actually I started researching it on behalf of the customer as it is
>>completely unacceptable.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> out of curiosity, when was that?
maybe 18-24months ago.
Noons - 18 Feb 2007 09:25 GMT
> maybe 18-24months ago.
thanks, much appreciated.