Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Price cuts on motherboard upgrades ???
Message-ID: <674959843.3@blkcat.FidoNet>
Date: 22 May 91 21:49:57 GMT
Sender: Uucp@p0.f40.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org
Lines: 30

roncalli@aurs01.UUCP (Guido Roncalli) writes:

> In article <674452930.0@blkcat.FidoNet>
> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes:
> >gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes:
> >
> >--> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a
> >--> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is
> >--> officially discontinued?  Or are there particular caveats to that?  (I
> >--> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of).
> >
> >    What would be the source of this obligation?  I really doubt that this
> >is the case.
> 
> The source of this obligation is a STATE LAW. ...I don't know if this law 
> exists in the U.S.A. too.

     It doesn't.  Generally speaking, there is no legal obligation to provide 
after-sales support, unless specifically provided for by contract.  

   There was some speculation that standard contract terms provided by the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations might include an after-sales support clause.
However, any such FAR provisions would only benefit the federal government,
and not unrelated third parties.  (Note that the federal government often pays
higher prices for goods and services because it requires suppliers to conform
to these FARs.)



 * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us  mingo@cup.portal.com  (1:109/421.4218)