wh@houxz.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER) (04/07/84)
["Just eat it!"] Bill McKeeman recently posted the following in response to discussion of customers performing their own RAM upgrades to Radio Shack Model 100 computers: > One might read the warranty on the model 100 before > diddling the insides. ANY customer change, even with > standard Tandy parts, invalidates the warranty. Just because the warranty says this doesn't mean it is an enforceable clause. Auto manufacturers used to use a similar clause, but it hasn't held up recently. In order for a manufacturer to refuse warranty service on a modified product, they must demonstrate that the modification caused or contributed to the failure. For example, if keys started breaking off your keyboard, they could not refuse service because you added RAM. You (the customer) should be prepared to show that except for the modification, you have maintained the product according to manufacturers specifications, to the extent the recommended maintenance is "reasonable". (Requiring daily service visits by an authorized repair bureau probably wouldn't be "reasonable" for a personal computer.) If you claim to have met maintenance schedules, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove you have not. While I know the above position applies to consumer products as expensive as automobiles, I do not know whether it applies to larger computing equipment used in a business application. The courts have felt in general that consumers should not have to keep as complete records of maintenance and use as might be expected of a business. I believe IBM used to use a similar clause to prevent its customers from attaching non-IBM products to their systems. I'm pretty sure they have changed their position now. Does anyone know if they made the change because the clause was found to be unenforceable, or to improve customer relations? Wayne Heinmiller Bell Communications Research houxz!wh Freehold, NJ