OFFICIAL Statement regarding the Sager NP9260 (Clevo D900C/D901C) Quad Core Information

Well, clearly because the manufacturer is refusing to provide warranty on parts and configurations that the reseller is offering. It seems quite obvious.

If the reseller is offering the quad-core as a configuration, then they are legally obligated to include that part (and any problems it may cause) in their warranty. If you added it yourself aftermarket, then any failure caused by the part would not be covered under warranty.

Note, however, that Clevo legally cannot blanket void all warranties because of the installation of an aftermarket CPU. They can only say that the warranty does not apply to failures caused by the CPU. (In the U.S., at least.)

 

eurocom is physically modifying the motherboard to accept the 95w quad core and the warranty on the system, including any extended warranty on it, is honored by them and not by clevo. exactly what they modify on the board i do not know.

i wish one of you active resellers on this forum simply dropped the 95w quad core in one of your systems and run a 48 hour stress test or something to tell us if it's stable. instead, we are waiting on clevo feeding us info at turtle speed while the retailers are milking buyers with the x6800 cpu offering for the time being.

it's just that i find it intruiging that some resellers (eurocom, voodoo, etc) have taken the initiative of offering quads in these notebooks instead of waiting on clevo. so it makes me very curious to find out exactly how this is done.

 

Spot on the Mark!

Step up, or Step off! Nuff Said.

 

No, not "Nuff Said"

It seems some of you confuse ODM's, OEM's and resellers. Resellers are not OEMs, and they are not ODMs. The way the warranty food chain goes is that the reseller relies on the OEM to provide the warranty and the OEM relies on the ODM. Now when the ODM says that their systems...yes, they are the ODM's systems in that they design, test and certify them, and then warrant them to the OEM...so when the ODM says that using a processor that is not certified in THEIR system will void THEIR warranty then the OEM has no one to look to nor does the reseller for warranty on an uncertified processor. Why in the world would a reseller or legitimate OEM want to stand for the warranty of a product that the ODM will not warrant? It is simply bad business.

A warranty is only as good as the company standing behind it. If you want to look to a small reseller (or even a small OEM for that matter) for a warranty instead of the Mulit-hundred million dollar ODM that is certainly your choice, although a rather foolish choice should you make it. Has everyone forgotten Flawless so quickly?

Also remember there is no incentive for Sager or Pro-Star (OEM's) or any of their resellers to "rush" into something that Clevo is already working on, and if they can prove the 95w Quad successful it will be released in due time. It is only youthful impatience that is pushing this entire conversation...the idea that Clevo is moving at "turtle" speed is utter nonsense, as is the concept that anyone is "milking" buyers out of anything in the mean time.

Grow up people, and if you are in such a hurry then why haven't you "simply dropped the 95w quad core in one of your systems and run a 48 hour stress test or something to tell us if it's stable." Anyone foolish enough to think that a 48 hour stress test will prove that a processor is stable enough to warranty for 3 years in heavy use deserves the result they get.

Like Wu Jen says...Step up, or Step off and let the real professionals at Clevo take what ever time is necessary to do thorough testing and make what ever modifications are necessary to make it work in such a way that it can be warranted by a company that has some substance.

 

Please cite your source for this legal wisdom.

Without going into legal citation myself let me pose a simple example. Say you have a new car and you put an aftermarket racing engine in it...that will certainly void the manufacturer's warranty.

If you read any laptop manufacturer's warranty you will find something like "This warranty does not apply if the Product has been damaged by accident, abuse, misuse, or misapplication; if the Product has been modified without the written permission of (manufacturer); or if any (manufacturer) serial number has been removed or defaced."

Also note that Clevo is not in the US (even if that mattered) so their warranty to the OEM is not based on US law.

 

This is not necessarily true. Please read the Magnuson-Moss warranty act, which under U.S. federal law says that the warranter cannot refuse to honor the warranty unless:
"the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance."
Any problems not related to the aftermarket upgrade would still have to be covered under warranty.

(this is not the text of the law, merely a paraphrasing. the full text is available online if you'd like to read it, however.)

The act applies to any warranty on a consumer product sold in the U.S., I believe, so yes Clevo is required to comply with it.

 

Paladin please don't continue to talk about things which you have no idea of. Putting an aftermarket racing engine into it would not void the manufacturers warranty, at least not in the US.

If you don't want to offer it because of Clevo, that's fine. Don't get all put out because OTHER reseller are though. If they offer a warranty, and they offer the Quad Core then fine. If I trust them enough to buy my laptop from them in the 1st place then I trust them to do the repairs for equipment they sold me. If they throw my notebook away and give me a new one because Clevo won't do the work is no skin off my teeth.

 

Well, it appears you are trying to practice law here, and unless you can cite some case law that supports your proposition your theory fails.

You see a lawyer would not ignore "...or by unreasonable use..." The fact is that putting a racing engine in a car, or putting a very high end CPU in a laptop that the manufacturer has published widely in writing is not certified for their product and any use of it will void the warranty is pretty clearly an "unreasonable use".

Further, there is no privity between the end user and Clevo. Clevo warrants to the OEM, not the end user so their warranty would not be considered under the Act. The point is that the seller of the consumer product in the US who offers the warranty to the end user would be covered under the Act so the Clevo warranty to the OEM wouldn't even be considered. Now Sager, the largest OEM of Clevo products in North America, will not warrant the use of the Quad (at this time anyway) so any reseller of a Sager product can only offer the Sager warranty on that product...not their own.

So, for both you and Wu Jen I say that if you want to rely on some reseller's warranty on a Clevo product that they have branded, knowing full well that the reseller cannot go back to Clevo for any help when the motherboard or some other component fails, and the reseller is no longer in business to back up that warranty, or simply makes excuses and refuses to honor their warranty...it is no skin off of my teeth either. However offering that kind of advice to people here on the forum is dangerous, and needs to have a sensible counter argument presented.

Let the debate go on...and let the readers decide.

 

I was not ignoring that. I was focusing instead on the phrase:
"the problem associated with a warranted consumer product"
Any problems not associated with the "unreasonable use" or aftermarket upgrade is still covered under warranty. My whole point was that Clevo can't legally make a blanket statement that the entire warranty is void. If you install a quad core processor, and a week later one of the hinges breaks (under normal usage), Clevo would still be legally obligated to repair the hinge.

 

Again, your just beating a dead horse. Eurocom is one of the larger Clevo resellers, much larger than your own company. Again, if they offer the quad core in the laptop, and they offer a warranty on it. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE IF IT MELTS ITSELF INTO A PUDDLE OF GOO! Eurocom is not a small fry.

I don't think they are going to go out of buisness from this, if you do then you have issues.

 

But if and when this Eurocom MELTS ITSELF INTO A PUDDLE OF GOO, and it takes x amount of days and delays to get it repaired just to have it MELTS INTO A PUDDLE OF GOO again.

will you blame Eurocom and only Eurocom? or will you blame the whole D90xC series?

I bought a Q6700 and placed it in my Sager NP9260 2 weeks ago, it ran hot, and it would never complete a warm boot. it will always lockup if i needed to reboot. have to hold the power button to cold reboot.

also the system would slow down at random and never return to normal speed until i shut it down and reboot aswell.

luckly i bought the quad core for a desktop, and just thought i test it out in the sager first.

has any of these reseller that has quad core as option shipped any of them? i would really like to see some other user results.

 

The question Tenchi is yours B3 or G0?

I would only blame Eurocom, why blame the model? I'm fairly certain the Eurocom or any other reseller that offers the quad, IF they had problems with it to such an extreme, would gladly switch the processor out for a comparable one...i.e. Q6700 to E6700 (or whatever is priced equally) to not have to keep replacing notebooks that were piles of goo.

With 4 resellers offering quad core (possibly more, but I only know of 4) this appears to be not just a niche thing.

 

I would blame Eurocom for selling an unusable system.

Several resellers are selling the quad-core in the system as an option shipped, including Eurocom and XtremeNotebooks, I believe. I'm not sure if any forum members have bought these with quad-core.

 

Q6700 only comes in G0.

 

Sounds like a bad deal. Thanks for the info Tenchi. I had been waiting a long(ish) time to hear solid details like the ones you presented.

 

Currently, mobo-makers are working full-speed on adapting the BIOS versions to support the quad cores...

So another reason why Q6700 might not initially work in the D900C/D901C is that Clevo has yet to officially release a BIOS update to fully support it.

 

yeah, it could be needing a BIOS update. but as Gophn pointed out Clevo has not release it officially.

or it could be worst, example:

this is exactly what i have been through with my desktop upgrades.

Buy Intel D975Xbx board when 9xx Dual core was released board Rev 1.2 newest at the time.

when Core 2 Duo was released it did not work with this board even after bios update.

needed to search everywhere to buy the same Intel D975Xbx board again with hardware Rev 1.3. or else the system would work but crash to hell.

then comes the quad cores, Sorry same chipset 975X was suppose to support it, but the damn same board stopped working again.

now i have to and has bought a Intel D975Xbx2 2nd version of this board....

keep in mind this is Intel official Boards.

some of you might not like Intel boards, but my corp. clients like them. and they do run stable as a rock if you have the right hardware revision that is.

i don't think it's safe to buy any quad core D901C at this time until Clevo has made it official, warranty or not. the pain and suffering you get from unstable system can not be covered by warranty.

 

Magnuson-Moss only talks to performance enhancing after market changes (which is to say better parts then the manufacturer installed, not super chargers ect..), it speaks nothing of adding incompatible equipment, or equipment not intended for use in the vehicle as they designed it. Upon the addition of parts installed by either yourself of a third party here in the USA that does not fully comply with the spec of the component replaced, the party responsible for warranty work is still taken to the 3rd party (a shop that installed it).

If for example, you have an after market stereo installed that the manufacturer can prove caused a problem with your cars electrical system, they are under no obligation to repair the car for an electrical issue. What they will and are legally allowed to do is provide you with the free diagnostic report to take back with you to the place that installed your stereo. This leaves you with the burden of trying to convince them to fix the issue and will most likely require legal action to fix. In the end, the stereo installation folks are responsible.

Now, from my own classic car restoration and modification work, I've been in a few mod shops over the years. I can promise you that they are willing to do ANYTHING to get you to spend money with them. Their personal warranty will cover only the parts they installed, and the labor related to installing that part. Any further defects are void of this warranty because to many lawsuit happy people try to blame mechanic shops for faulty brakes when they had their battery replaced.

Now, assuming that your warranty isn't void, there is also the right of the manufacturer to charge you for fixing issues related to out of spec modifications as a result of the modification. They don't always void the entire warranty, just items that might have been effected by your changes. Years of computer repair have shown me that many resellers that make computers will exercise this right in the event you add an aftermarket cooler and your CPU overheats. They can do this because they can claim that the cooler isn't what the CPU vendor provided, and the cpu vendor will no longer provide them the RMA number to warranty the part.

 

Ignoring the car remarks. It comes down to this:

If the reseller SELLS YOU A QUAD CORE NOTEBOOK and you have a warranty with them. Any damage to that notebook from the quad core overheating will be covered BY THE RESELLER.

Again, the biggest point I see is that IF the notebook gets too hot/sucks too much juice etc and it fry's the mobo/locks hang's etc. That the reseller wouldn't offer it because of all the RMA headaches.

Biggest thing your going to have to worry about is having to ship it back to the reseller, IF it proves to be unstable. That's it.

 

the GO stepping was just introduced and you stated you bought it 2 weeks ago. yours could very well be the older 105w stepping. we already know the 105w stepping is unstable because clevo tried it themselves. but clevo did not release any info on the 95w version and i think this whole quad core conversation we are having has to do with the GO 95w stepping only.

the 95w GO steppings are brand new. for right now, you need to place orders with vendors that specialize in selling a specific stepping, like clubit.com. more popular vendors like newegg.com does not do this. i am not sure where you purchased your q6700, though.

so far no one has provided any evidence that the 95w stepping does not work. i will say again that the active forum vendors on here need to step it up by putting the 95w stepping into the d900c. if a 48 hour cpu stress test is not good enough then do a 7 day test.

 

No Argh, i have the G-0 as it was confirmed by you and others in thread http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=151399&page=3

and i order it from newegg the same day 8/7/2007 got it on the 10th.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115027

and i confirmed what i received using the Intel CPU SSpec on intel.com. and again it was confirmed by you and the others that Q6700 only comes in G-0 Stepping as well as intel.com.

ok almost 2 weeks ago.

 

no one confirmed you had the GO stepping in that thread. the only way to confrim this is if you look at the die iteslf and read us the stepping code.

i do not believe you had the GO stepping because you ordered it from newegg. they probably shipped out the older stepping that was in stock. at the time of your order i believe the GO stepping was sold out everywhere.

 

Please reread that thread, i wanted the confirmation how to make sure what i order is G-0 stepping Q6600 / Q6700, and the thread pointed it out that Q6700 only comes in G-0 stepping so my safe bid is to get the Q6700.

which i did and the newegg killer clubit did not have it in stock, but newegg did. so i placed the order.

what i got is the SLACQ SSspec which i confirmed that it is truely the only Q6700 that exist and it is G-0 stepping here.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2774&sSpec=&OrdCode=

 

oh i see, my bad.

maybe a bios update is required to even run the GO stepping then. so it appears that you cannot simply drop one in the d900c and run it. maybe what eurocom's modification is simply a bios update?....hmm...

the mystery surrounding the quads is always an interesting topic for sure.

 

I agree with you completely pyro. I was merely speaking of problems unrelated to the aftermarket upgrade, such as if you install a new CPU and your get loose, or you have problems with the keyboard. For any problems related to the CPU, I agree that your on your own.

I just get annoyed when manufacturers try to make blanket statements such as "if you break this seal, your warranty will be void," or "if you don't use our service centers, your warranty will be void" which are against federal warranty law in the U.S.

 

Hey Tenchi, what bios are you using? Just curious if you have the older 1.00.03 or the newer one?

 

Bios Version is D900C 1.00.04a

 

Thanks Tenchi, appreciate the info. Thats the newest BIOS that we know of and it doesn't bode well for anyone just dropping one into their notebook. Now if we could just get someone that has purchased a Quad core from Eurocom, Pioneer or Extreme and find out what BIOS they are shipping the units with. As far as I know that is the latest BIOS.

 

There seems to be a bit of confusion around here regarding warranties, disclaimers and voiding thereof, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. There also seems to be a bit of confusion about the difference between an express warranty (for these purposes, a written warranty) and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use.

First, generally, the Warranty Act does not provide any additional substantive protections, only certain procedural protections. Basically, the Warranty Act prohibits the disclaimer of an implied warranty if an express warranty is made; however, if no express warranty is given (i.e., nothing in writing), the warrantor may disclaim all implied warranties. 15 USC 2308(a).

Thus, with regard to Clevo, since they've given an express warranty, they cannot disclaim any implied warranty. Also, it should be kept in mind that a disclaimer is different from a condition that voids a warranty - a disclaimer is the warrantor's statement that s/he is not making a certain type of warranty (e.g., "this warranty shall not be construed to include any warranty, express or implied, as to whether 1+1=3").

Second, the Warranty Act does not put any restrictions on a warrantor's ability to limit any express warranty s/he gives, all it does is require that an express warranty be conspicuously labeled as "Full" (if it meets the federal minimum standards of 15 USC 2304) or as "Limited" (if it does not meet the federal minimum standards of 15 USC 2304). 15 USC 2302(a). In particular, the Warranty Act does not impose any sort of restriction on the conditions a warrantor can impose on an express warranty that is identified as a "Limited" warranty.

Thus, in regard to Clevo, provided they identify their warranty as "Limited," under the Warranty Act they can impose whatever conditions they want on it, including, for example, the condition that any sort of substantial modification, such as upgrading to a processor they have not approved for use in the system, voids the entire warranty as to any sort of damage. Under the Warranty Act, that is perfectly legal, and will permit Clevo to refuse to cover under their express warranty damage such as a cracked lid hinge if the owner of the system has upgraded to a non-permitted processor. For further authority, you might consult Lawrence's Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 2-313:337; some relevant caselaw includes Downs v. Shouse, 501 P.2d 401 (Ariz. 19??).

As a result, since Clevo has stated that the quad-core processors are not appropriate for the D901C, it is entirely possible (and legal) that putting one of those into a D901C could void your warranty even with respect to a cracked hinge lid.

Before you flame, please note, this applies to the EXPRESS warranty only. The implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use cannot be voided in this manner; however, see below as to substantial changes and misuse and their effect on implied warranties.

Also, I didn't look the question up, but I would be careful about assuming that any reseller who offers the D901C with a processor that Clevo has not authorized has not voided Clevo's express warranty.

Ok, so we've disposed of express warranties, which may be as limited as the warrantor chooses, provided that it's identified as a "Limited" warranty. That leaves implied warranties.

Implied warranties are warranties that the applicable state law governing the purchase reads into the agreement between the buyer and the seller. These are, generally, the warranty of merchantability and of fitness for use.

Under the Warranty Act, a person who gives an express (i.e., written) warranty may not disclaim any implied warranty that otherwise applies under the relevant state law; however, a person who gives a written limited warranty that has a limitation as to time may limit the implied warranties to the same amount of time as the express warranty.

Please note, the Warranty Act does not say anything about whether or not any implied warranty actually covers you; all it says is that, if an implied warranty would cover you, the person giving a written warranty may not disclaim that implied warranty.

In general, a change in the product in question will not discharge the warrantor from liability under the warranty unless the defect of which the buyer complains was caused by that change. The same applies with respect to the buyer's misuse of the product, or failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions. See, e.g., Lawrence's Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, Secs. 2-314:347, 660-61, 665, 673. For caselaw, see, e.g., Kirk v. Garrett Ford Tractor, Inc., 650 So.2d 865 (Ala. 1994); McCarthy v. Litton Indus. Inc., 570 N.E.2d 1008 (Mass. 1991).

Conversely, where the damage the buyer complains of was proximately caused by the buyer's alteration of the product, including the use of unapproved replacement parts and failure to follow authorized maintenance procedures, the warrantor may be partly or wholly relieved of any liability for that damage. Id. This rule is partly mitigated by the Warranty Act, which prohibits so-called tie-in-sales provisions; under that prohibition, the warranty is not voided by the failure to use parts (other than parts the warrantor gives you for free) that are specified by "brand, trade, or corporate name...." 15 USC 2302(c). However, as stated by the FTC, a warranty does not have to cover "use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate" for the product in question. See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm

Now, in regard to putting a quad-core CPU into a D901C, that mere fact alone should not void any warranty under the Warranty Act unless such a CPU was "inappropriate" for use in the D901C. As indicated by numerous other posts on this thread, Clevo and Sager have a reasonable basis for concluding that the quad-core CPU in question is inappropriate for use in the D901C and, accordingly, actually putting one of those CPUs into your D901C will (a) void the express warranty that Clevo gave you, and (b) relieve Clevo from liability under any applicable implied warranties to the extent that the use of such a quad-core CPU is the proximate cause of any damage for which a warranty claim is made.

This is very easy to state in principle, but may be substantially more difficult to prove in the event that Clevo decides to contest your warranty claim. For example, as Clevo and Sager stated in their official releases, the quad-core CPUs have a significantly higher heat output than do the authorized dual-core processors. If you were to put a quad-core into your D901C, and operate it for any significant amount of time, even if the CPU itself survives the hotter environment, innocuous things, like the plastic that was used to make the casing itself, may not. It is entirely possible that running a substantially hotter CPU inside the case of a D901C for a significant amount of time might cause the plastic of the exterior casing to become brittle where that would not happen if the cooler authorized CPUs were used.

If this were the case, or even if Clevo could come up with enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that there was a greater than 50% probability that it was the case, then you would lose on your warranty claim for the cracked lid hinge, even though there is no immediately obvious connection between using a significantly hotter CPU and the damage done to the hinge.

That being said, Clevo would bear the burden of proof on that matter, so you would prevail on your warranty claim so long as Clevo could not muster the requisite amount of proof.

Bottom line is: almost every part of a notebook can be negatively affected by exposure to significantly more heat than it was originally designed for, and I for one would not want to run the risk of having to fight a plethora of expert evidence that tends to show that such heat could, e.g., cause my lid hinge to get brittle and crack, solely for the chance to strut my stuff my trying to get ahead of Clevo on the technology curve.

 

I'm sure they probably have voided Clevo's express warranty, but they still have to provide support for their own warranty, since they have implicitly admitted that the Quad-core CPU is "acceptable use" in the D900c since they offered it as a basic configuration.

Agreed, and this is what I was trying to state before. Thanks for clarifying it.

Neither would I, I was merely trying to point out that Clevo cannot legally compeletly void "any and all warranties" based on an aftermarket upgrade alone. They would have to prove proximate cause in each individual case.

 

But the question is....Does it really matter? If the reseller sells you a quad core notebook, can they say tough luck and write you off with no warranty?

Personally I don't think so. If they warranty it, then they have to fix it, bottom line.

Clevo can go jump in the proverbial lake, because I'm never going to deal with Clevo, as 99% of Clevo owners never will. The 2nd or 3rd party reseller WILL be my point of contact.

 

No, none of this matters for people who bought a D900c with quad-core preinstalled. This discussion is merely for people who added quad-core as an aftermarket upgrade.

Correct.

 

I second your hate of the "break the seal" style warranties...

 

Yes, they can "write you off with no warranty" if they simply never offer you a written warranty in the first place, in which case they can also disclaim any and all implied warranties under the Warranty Act. The only thing that will save you then is if you live in a state where the law prohibits a seller from disclaiming implied warranties.

That being said, if they give you a written warranty, they have to honor the terms thereof provided that you have also punctiliously followed the terms of the written warranty. On top of that, because of the existence of the written warranty, they cannot disclaim the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness; however, the measure of what constitutes merchantability and fitness is relative, not absolute.

In other words, if someone sells you an experimental computer set-up, and hasn't misled you into thinking that it's just an garden-variety system, the measure of merchantability and fitness will be lower than for the average garden-variety computer system. Basically, a D901C with a quad-core CPU put in by Eurocom, in the face of Clevo's statement that the quad-core CPU posed a significant risk to the system, is not the same thing as a BTO HP dv9500t you ordered from the HP online store - something that would constitute an actionable defect on the HP may very well not constitute an actionable defect on an experimental D901C with a quad-core CPU.

Another thing to keep in mind is the warrantor's defense of assumption of the risk. If you knew that there was a significant risk that the computer would self-destruct on account of using the quad-core CPU that had not yet been approved by the ODM, then a court hearing your warranty claim might very well hold that you assumed the risk that the quad-core CPU would turn the system into a puddle of goo, and that the reseller was therefore not liable under the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness.

Bottom line: even if they warranty it, they do not have to fix it (at least not at their expense) if you assumed the risk of failure of an experimental system, or if the reason for the failure was something that did not constitute a "defect" under the implied warranties on account of the fact that the computer was an experimental system and not a garden-variety HP or Dell.

On top of which, it seems very cold comfort to know that you can get a free replacement of your plastic case if it goes kaput, but that you're SOL when it comes to the almost $1,000 investment in the CPU as well as all of the other electronic components.

 

Yes, however Eurocom provides a written warranty (it's not labeled as full or limited, as the warranty laws are different in Canada. I'm assuming it's a limited warranty), and it specifically covers the CPU. Also, I went through the order process with Eurocom and they make no mention of any potential dangers with the quad-core option, or that it voids the ODM's warranty. I am not a lawyer, however I can't see anyway that they could sell a warranted machine with a certain part, and then deny your warranty when that part melts your machine. Furthermore Eurocom's warranty (unlike Clevo's) does not mention any specific upkeep tasks you have to perform. It just says "normal use," which in terms of the D900c could very well mean highly intensive gaming sessions.

 

It also pays to read the warranty they do give you a little more carefully before you start launching into "I hates." If you read most warranties, you will certainly see language to the effect that doing x or y or ... will void the warranty; however, if you keep reading past that part and read down to the bottom, you will frequently find the statement that (a) certain states may not enforce certain of the disclaimers and exclusions contained in the express limited warranty and (b) your state law may provide you will other rights and remedies.

Guess what, they have as good as given you a kick in the pants to contact your state consumer protection agency to find out what your "other rights" are, and you're simply a d**ned fool if you don't - what, do you expect them to actually do your own legal research for you as well? Can you imagine what the "Limited Warranty" from Clevo, for example, would look like if it had to categorize and describe all of the different additional rights provided by each of the 50 states? Ye Gods, do you want that in the two-volume or three-volume set?

A good example is the catch-all paragraph at the end of the Sager limited warranty, to wit: "Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages or exclusions of implied warranties, so the above limitations or exclusions may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific rights, and you may also have other rights that vary from state to state." See http://www.sagernotebook.com/information.php?information_id=10

The bottom line is, unless state law says otherwise, a warrantor is completely free to put whatever restrictions and limitations they want on their express warranty terms, provided that such terms are not deceptive (i.e., make it look like you have protection you really do not), and may legally state that opening the sealed package absolutely voids the entire express warranty as to any component of the system. Their only disclosure obligation viz-a-viz your additional rights under any implied warranties is a statement like that at the end of the Sager warranty.

 

No end user will ever have a warranty from Clevo. They can only have a warranty from the OEM (Sager who refuses to build it with the Quad, or Eurocom who does, or??).

The OEM has the warranty from Clevo, so it is important to understand that the OEM is the only one that relies on Clevo's warranty.

Oh, and from a practical perspective Shyster1, what would the approximate legal fees be to enforce Eurocom's warranty should they decide to not honor a user's warranty for whatever reason?

What would the prospects of winning be assuming Eurocom argues well that the user assumed the risk?

And, once more, we have to remember that a warranty is only as good as the company that gives it, so a warranty from a small reseller may end up not being worth anything...they don't "have to" do anything except turn out the lights.

 

I think it would depend on if it was a class action or not.

 

Practically speaking it would be tough. However from a cursory examination of all the text Eurocom provides prior to the sale of the D900c, it appears that they never inform you of the risk of the quad-core CPU. And if they decided to say that you altered the notebook in some way, the burden of proof would be on them.

 

They do not have to affirmatively tell you the system is experimental if that knowledge is easily available - you've already been on this forum and this thread, so guess what, you have that knowledge. What they cannot do is to lull you into a false sense of security by making representations to you that the system is garden-variety when it is not, or by allowing you to assume that it is garden-variety because nothing about its appearance or available specifications would cause the hypothetical reasonable gaming notebook purchaser to suspect that it might not be a garden-variety computer like an HP. That is a much easier hurdle to jump than you seem to think it is.

Second, the warranty itself does not have to contain the detailed maintenance, repair, or etc instructions within the four corners of the warranty card - instructions contained in the owner's manual will suffice. You read that thing cover to cover yet?

Ultimately, the issue is moot because it's Eurocom's business if they want to take on that sort of risk (which is probably not much of a risk since they're probably covered by insurance against warranty claims above a certain amount, so some ducky little insurance company is actually eating the risk, which even they aren't really taking on since they'll have spread that risk around through the capital markets). No, the bigger issue is, are you really, really sure you want to take the risk of having to spend countless hours on the phone, writing letters, and etc, sending your expensive lump of black goo back and forth to Eurocom for repairs, possibly multiple times? I thought the point of buying a top-of-the-line computer was using it, not funding the postmans' benevolent society through repeated payment of shipping costs.

There's cutting edge, bleeding edge, and then there's just plain stupid.

 

First, I trust we're arguing toward the same point; namely, that buying a D900C with a quad-core CPU that Clevo has specifically disavowed is not a wise decision.

Second, as a practical matter, if Eurocom were to resist a warranty claim, it could easily cost at least $10,000, and probably a lot more, to enforce the claim. Initially, Eurocom would probably move for dismissal on the grounds that a U.S. court did not have jurisdiction over Eurocom because they never made sales into the U.S. I note that their return instructions state that they use a contract carrier, which implies that they would take the position that the sale occurred in Canada, not the U.S., and as such is governed by Canadian law, not U.S. law. That motion would go both to personal jurisdiction over the company as well as to subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., that U.S. warranty law did not apply). The trial court's ruling would then be subject to appeal to at least one higher court.

Assuming you won that appeal, you then have to go to trial on the claim itself. Eurocom would undoubtedly dig up a couple of expert witnesses, necessitating additional expenses to prepare to cross-examine their experts, and hire and prep your own expert(s) to refute their experts, and expert witnesses do not come cheap. Finally, any trial verdict against them would also go up on appeal, necessitating even further expense to argue the appeal.

But, there's an even easier way for Eurocom to minimize the monetary cost to them of having to replace a system that gets fried because of the quad-core CPU, and that's a very drawn-out claims process with a lot of customer representatives who are trained to always say "no" first. A lot of claimants will simply drop their claims once their frustration level gets too high. For those with a higher tolerance for frustration, the system will eventually get replaced, but only after having to argue with multiple reps who initially rejected a claim, and then having to go up through the levels of management until you get to the person whose job is to say "yes" to those few people whose perseverance indicates that they are likely litigation risks.

As a result, Eurocom gets to keep the couple of hundred dollars paid for the warranty (let's be real, the base price for the system already includes a charge that is allocated to warranty cost reserves) paid by those who drop their claims out of frustration, and gets to delay for a long time the day of reckoning for those few who persevere.

To top it all off, I doubt if Eurocom just puts the warranty money it receives into a zero-interest checking account at the local savings and loan - instead, I'm quite sure that they use those funds to purchase insurance against warranty claims, which means that they bear little or no financial risk from having a significant number of the quad-core systems melt down.

As far as who gets to rely on whose warranties, I don't know all of the specifics, but now that you mention it, I don't recall seeing any mention of a warranty running to the benefit of the end-user from Clevo on any of the websites of the companies that sell Clevo-based systems. That indicates to me that Clevo is not, in fact, making any sort of a warranty to the end-user, and their literature probably contains a disclaimer of any implied warranties as well, which means that the end-user cannot, in general, bring a warranty claim against Clevo in any event. I would note here that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not apply to products sold for resale (i.e., Clevo's sales to Sager, for example), which means that in all likelihood, Clevo is simply not subject to the restrictions on warranties imposed by the Warranty Act.

That means that the only warranty(ies) the end-user can look to are those given by the reseller(s) in the chain of purchase. In your case, that would be Sager and/or yourself. In the case of Eurocom, that would be the warranty given by Eurocom.

As you said, in this instance, the only warranty claims that could, in general, be lodged against Clevo would be those claims made by the reseller under the purchase agreement between the reseller and Clevo. Those warranties are, in general, governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and are not governed by the Warranty Act.

Finally, the risk that Eurocom would assert as a defense assumption of the risk is probably fairly high because, as this thread amply demonstrates, the risks of using the quad-core CPU are very well publicized.

 

What would depend on whether or not there was a class action? A class action, if anything, would probably be to Eurocom's advantage, because it would allow them to effectively bar the claims of a lot of disgruntled purchasers at the cost of merely one set of trials and appeals instead of having to defend a large number of individual claims, most of which would be brought in small-claims court.

Furthermore, if Eurocom has established adminstrative procedures to hear warranty claims, any class action could be stopped in its tracks simply on the grounds that each claimant had to exhaust her/his administrative remedies first. That means that the only people who would have standing to be members of the class would be those who had enough tolerance for customer "service" frustration to make it all the way through, which puts them in precisely the same position they would be without a class action.

 

So, basically your saying Eurocom is not to be trusted, nor any other quad core offerer because it's so well publicized?

 

Correct...I hope I have made that abundantly clear in my previous posts on this matter.

Which would never happen because neither PowerNotebooks.com nor Sager would be involved in such a dispute because Sager will not offer this CPU unless and until Clevo certifies it for use in any of their models. That was the point and purpose of my initial post that started this thread.

 

I've actually never disagreed with this fact, and I would never personally drop that kind of cash considering the fact that I've never seen or heard of a working quad-core laptop in the wild working for any length of time.


And yes, as Donald has stated before Clevo warranties only apply to the OEM, not the end-user. It's anyone's guess how much any specific reseller relies on the ODM to back warranty claims, and how much they back themselves. In the case we're currently discussing, I imagine Eurocom has it's own underwriters for these warranties and is simply dismissing the ODM warrranty.

I would actually disagree with this. For the average gamer who looks to buy a high end laptop from someone like Eurocom or XtremeNotebooks, they don't usually know that much about the risks and hardware issues in notebooks, as they're generally coming off of desktop rigs. Some of them post in these (or other similar) forums, and are enlightened, but I'm sure there are plenty who aren't. And it's hardly reasonable for Eurocom to expect the consumer to do their own research on the technical specifications of every piece of hardware put into the system, especially when Eurocom never mentions the fact that this setup is "expiremental" or in any other way unusual.

 

Nope, Eurocom's trust-worthiness depends on a whole host of other factors. Since I've never dealt with them (nor, to my knowledge, have they with me ), I have no particular opinion on how trust-worthy they are.

As to the solidity of the warranty, evaluating that will depend first and foremost on a careful reading of the entire warranty, plus any other relevant terms and conditions, and an understanding of the particular law (i.e., which state or, if necessary, Canada) that would be applied for the purpose of construing the language of the warranty and, if need be, enforcing the warranty.

Second, if possible, their track record on honoring their warranties generally should be examined and a search should be done for any litigation or other public records regarding disputes. For example, it would be useful to find out if the Better Business Bureau has any sort of a detailed filed on them.

The best way to weigh the value of their warranty is probably to see to what extent they have been conscientious in honoring their warranty with other products that ended up being white elephants (not because the quad-core system is necessarily a white elephant, but because having a large number of claims on a system that stinks would cause any but the most conscientious warrantor to try every angle to wriggle out of its obligations). Basically, if Eurocom has never flinched in the face of the computer analog of the Edsel, and if they have a record of honoring the spirit of their warranty, not just the mere letter, then one could probably conclude that they would do the same with the warranty behind the quad-core system.

But, even assuming that Eurocom has been extremely liberal in honoring all but the most bizarre of warranty claims, you still have to ask yourself if you really want to go through the head-ache of having to make constant warranty claims - that is the real risk here (in the absence of any evidence that Eurocom is a warranty scofflaw) and, quite frankly, having gone through a lot of stupid little games with HP just to get a simple HDD replaced under warranty, I would tend to put a lot of weight on that risk. As I said earlier, I always thought the point of buying a computer was to use it, not to have an excuse to fund the postmans' benevolent society.

Obviously, Eurocom has enough of a name out here so that they would not take completely unwarranted (excuse the pun) risks with that goodwill by selling systems that were guaranteed to break down; however, if Clevo, which itself tends to be fairly cutting edge with the D901C, is leery about putting the quad-core in the D901C, and given that they are, after all, in the best position to understand all of the potential problems and latent weaknesses in the rest of the components that, while fine with a dual-core, could cause a failure with a quad-core, I would tend to draw the conclusion that Eurocom has gone a little too far out ahead of the curve.

At bottom, I think that it's a calculated risk Eurocom took - and they're probably in a better position to calculate that risk than I am - but the ante is a little too high.

Finally, if they sell a large number of those systems, and they do turn out to be a disaster, do not be surprised if the gentle giant turns into a mean-spirited ogre; they may very well decide that their goodwill has been sufficiently damaged by virtue of having sold the systems that reneging on the warranty under any available excuse, no matter how flimsy, will not do any more damage. Again, they could achieve that result without ever having to resort to explicitly disclaiming the warranty; all they have to do is make the claims process sufficiently tortuous that it dissuades all but the bravest of souls.

With respect to the publicity, however; yes, that does increase the odds that they could successfully defend against a warranty claim on the grounds that everyone who bought assumed the risk of buying an experimental system because the potential problems had already become common knowledge.

Think about it, from a policy perspective, whom do we really want to protect, the poor sap who buys what he thinks is a garden-variety system no reasonable person would suspect was a lemon, only to have it blow up in his face because it was really an experimental system, or the person who knows full well that there was a reasonable possibility that the system would turn out to be a lemon, but buys it anyway because he wants to be bleeding-edge?

The basic policy point of encouraging things like insurance and warranties is to protect the innocent, not to encourage the mis-allocation of resources by shifting the risk from the purchaser to the general populace (that's what happens when risk is off-loaded to the capital markets - we all bear a small bit of it) - in antiquated insurance terms, that sort of thing is called moral hazard, the risk that the availability of indemnity from the consequences of risk will cause people to take risks that they would not otherwise take under a rational cost-benefit analysis.

Think of it this way. Drunk drivers are a menace to the rest of us, and accordingly, there are fairly severe penalties imposed if one gets caught driving drunk. Suppose, however, that for a price paid upfront (perhaps an additional fee on your annual license registration), you could get indemnity from, say, your first drunk-driving arrest for that year. What would happen? People who aren't otherwise inclined to take the non-criminal risks of driving drunk will not pay the price; instead, those people whose only reason for not driving drunk is the criminal stuff - otherwise they wouldn't care, 'cause they "know" they're still super-terrific drivers even when they're three sheets to the wind - will be the people who pay the price, and they will use their get-out-of-jail-free card to drive drunk at least one time more than they would otherwise have done. Result, drunk driving, with all of its collateral consequences goes up, but the social response to it - arrests, fines, jail, increased insurance premiums, etc - goes down.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem of moral hazard posed by any system that provides indemnification from contingent risks that could be potentially catastrophic.

 

The issue doesn't turn solely on what a particular claimant actually knows, though that is usually given a lot of weight, it also turns on what the claimant should have known; i.e., what he could have learned if he had only bothered to do some simple research before buying the product. While mere negligence is not always a defense to a warranty claim, it may still reduce the amount of your available remedies, and willful blindness may very well be a defense because at some point it amounts to assumption of the risk.

 

In a nutshell if the warranty document specifically states that the machine develivered is warranted then there is no problem as llong as Eurocom is in business whatever is the policy of the manufacturer regarding these issues.

The problem is if Eurocom business closes doors for whatever reason. In that case you'll have to rely on the warranty given by the manufacturer of components. In the case of components offered by Clevo warranty is voided so you will not be able to turn to them.

I have a similar problem. My d900c under stress load get to 68C-70C. This is over 60.1C set by Intel as the maximum supported by the E6700. This means that the machine (D900c) does not comply with the requirements stated by Intel. If my supplier or distributor business goes down, then the warranty offered by Intel to their CPU's is voided by default so I'll not be able to use it. All I can do is sue a closing business and be prepared to buy a new CPU.

My machine went to repair due to several reasons, one of them is that the machine with the default settings do not comply with the specs of the components. All in all, I want them to check if everything is ok (components are well fitted) and eventually do something to lower the temps such as use Artic Silver 5. I haven't thought about the legal issues, I just want them to check the temps and lower them.

Having said all this, it all comes down how much you trust your supplier. I have yet to see a bad review of Eurocom from a client, anyway I'm not a client as I live in Portugal.

People buy Computers all the time that do not comply with Intel or even AMD specs. The d900c for instance is one of them as far as I can tell by my temps. So, I see no reason not to buy a machine that does not comply with Clevo specs as long as it is warranted by the supplier and you trust the supplier business.

There is for instance a company that offers the latest Intel CPU's modified to support both CrossFire and SLI. (I don't remember the name). If their business goes balistic you'll have a brick in your hand., etc etc etc etc.

Trance

 

So you're saying it's reasonable to assume that every buyer should investigate the detailed thermal and power requirements of the individual parts making up the notebook? Even when the seller makes no mention that their is anything unusual about the system? Also, it's not negligence because in this case their is nothing the buyer could do, other than decide to buy a different system.

 

There is no negligence from the buyer IMHO even he knows the specs of all components. If something goes wrong with a system where no actions not covered by warranty were taken against it, at the most there was negligence from the supplier as he assured the customer the system operates accordingly. This becouse there was nothing in the warranty contract that the customer is taking a risk by acquiring/consuming such product.

This granted that both supplier and customer acted on good faith. That is neither the customer or supplier are misleading on purpose each other by conceiling relevant information when a contract is signed. Something that IMHO does not really apply here as information is seldom available regarding these laptops to both supplier and customer.

Trance
PS: I don't see anything unsual regarding Eurocom claim as they are required to support such claim, even if other's don't endorse it. This is quite common in business. Quality as nothing to do with it. Quality is about someone or something operating according to what it is claimed. That is, it is about an entity fully supporting its claims. Note that speed and quality are two different things, one can have one without the other althought both usually go with each other in terms of human perception.