B&H selling used as new? Bottom line..

I presume that some readers (may) have understood the point being made in my previous post. It is point based upon "circumstantial" evidence, but it is neverthless notable, and easily demonstrable.

B&H used equipment categories of condition of pre-owned equipment are as follows:

10 = Preowned equipment, but appears as new

9+ = Shows little or no signs of wear

9 = Shows signs of use, but very clean

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/UsedConditions.jsp

In all of the above cases, B&H's own stated postion with regards to manufacturer's warranty coverage appears to be one that leaves little doubt as to the status of returned merchandise.

Equipment that is sold via a sales-contract (invoice) which (in the case of cameras, and perhaps some other types of equipment) includes the unit's unique serial-number identifier stated in writing on that sales-contract. The durable existence of that sales-contract document makes the original purchaser an initial owner - regardless of anything which does or does not occur when the original customer accepts the shipment from the shipping carrier (consumating the sales-contract).

One example. The Panasonic (US/Puerto Rico) warranty associated with my DMC-GH2 states:

This warranty is extended only to the original purchaser of a new product which was not sold "as is".

- Page 201, DMC-GH2 Operating Instructions, Revision VQT3A36

Regarding the legal meaning and implications of the phrase "As is" (as of the year 1979):

A sale of goods by sample "as is" requires that the goods be of the kind and quality represented, even though they be in a damaged condition. (UCC Subsection 2-313).

Use of the expression in sales agreement that goods are sold "as is" implies that buyer takes the entire risk as to the quality of the goods involved and he must trust to his own inspection. Implied and express warranties are excluded in sales of goods "as is". (UCC Subsection 2-316).

- Blacks Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition, 1979)

As provisions of the US Commercial Code may have changed since 1979, the reader should verify.

The fact that a product in the possession of an original purchaser never leaves it's packaging does not preclude the possibility that the merchandise may possibly have been subjected to temperatures existing outside of the equipment's rated storage temperature-range, or that the equipment may have been subjected to damaging amounts of mechanical vibration or of electromagnetic radiation.

Thus, establishing the operational functionality of such a unit (once returned) by the seller would necessarily involve opening the packaging and testing the merchandise in some manner.

It seems (to me) that any such processes of (on some level , to some extent) assessing and representing the operational functionality of returned merchandise by the seller falls under an "as is" status surrounding the subsequent sale to another (non-original) purchaser.

Thus, the equipment manufacturer (in the case of Panasonic, from the single example of warranty language cited above) would appear to be within their rights to refuse to honor the warranty rights of a non-original purchaser who has in good faith purchased what has been represented by a retail seller to them as a "new" item - but which in reality is documented by the retail seller as having been pre-sold to an original purchaser, and has also potentially been removed from it's packaging by the retail seller in order to attempt to assess the operational functionality of the merchandise (which itself would seem to be a prudent and a desirable practice to engage in on the part of the retail seller).

.

It seems (to me) that the forthright thing for retail sellers to do (in fairness to the customers who in good faith enter into a purchase agreements for allegedly "new" merchandise), would be to place all merchandise that had been received by an original purchaser (thus consumating the original sales-contract) and subsequently returned (for any given reason) in the "Used" (rather than "New") merchandise sales category, and discount the sales price based upon:

(1) It's used status (given the limited abilities for the retail seller to fully ensure operational integrity);

(2) Any loss of manufacturer warranty rights (which seems, according to B&H, to be very common).

If the retail seller chooses to offer their own warranty coverage, the sales price could reflect that.

The financial costs associated with the retail seller's loss of profit-margin when non-defective merchandise is returned to the seller should be equitably borne by the original purchaser and/or the retail seller themself - and not unkowingly borne by customers who in good faith enter into a sales-contract for merchandise that is represented as being "new", not previously owned, and without any question (or possible exception or exemption otherwise) covered under manufacturer's warranty.

DM...