u just explained that PIs
might be less reliable - it is a perception - no arguments there.
but it still doesn't explain why some here are so
hostile towards shops who sell grey goods :dunno: .
the shops dont hide the fact that its grey. they dont hide the fact that there's no warranty. the prices are very competitive. buyers go, see test, if happy, buy. if not happy, don't buy. its all about individual choice.
what if the shop close down? i will continue taking pictures if the equipment is still working :bsmilie: if not, its no difference than if i bought a local set. it could be out of warranty, i will send it in, i may have to pay for parts / workmanship, it may be beyond repair, etc etc.
in my view, warranty does not come "free" - it is included in the price of the product. if you don't need it / want it and want to pay less for it as a result, why not?
if you
need local warranty (i.e. u use your camera to make money), then pay more and buy local sets. u can make the same arguments for cars as well - if u intend to use it heavily for work, buying an exotic parallel import model from a dodgy PI that does not offer after sales service is probably not a good idea.
the silliness probably stems from the bad experience of a minority of users who didn't do their homework and had the wrong expectations about grey goods.
To put things in perspective, here's an excerpt from the
brochure on CASE's website on the Consumer Protection (fair trading) Act:
What should I do if I encounter an unfair practice?
If you fall victim to an unfair practice, you should:
1. Attempt to resolve the dispute with the business first, failing which
2. Seek CASE’s assistance to negotiate a settlement with the business.
3. File a civil claim in the Small Claims Tribunal/Magistrates Court if no resolution is reached through the above channels.
Hence, lemon law coverage in this case is irrelevant - if the shop is still around, u can bring it back and work out an agreeable arrangement. if not, suck thumb. thats no difference from pre-lemon law situation. just that the law may result in a more favourable ruling for consumers. thats all. but the onus is still on the consumer do their homework and work it out with the business if the purchase did not work out. consumers should not presume that the law would make shops any more honest, or that consumers would be more "powerful" with the law. it is still a hassle to enforce the provisions.