Stupidity

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
genius bar, perminder tung, time capsule

Companies:
apple



Guy Sues Apple For $25k Because His Time Capsule Device Died

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

People will file lawsuits over almost anything these days. Perminder Tung has apparently sued Apple because his Time Capsule device broke and no one at the Genius Bar could fix it. I can certainly understand the frustration here, but it's difficult to see how there's any sort of legit claim. Technology fails all the time. There's nothing that promised this device would work forever. Claiming, as Tung does, that the failure of Time Capsule represents "a fundamental and total breach of contract," seems like a huge stretch. Man. If I could have legitimately sued every time a technology -- especially a backup storage system -- failed without being repairable, I'd have a hell of a lot more money. But we don't do that, because we know that there is no implicit promise when you buy technology that it works forever.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:16am

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    "If his country's Sale of Goods Act is anything like the UK's, he's able to expect his product to last up to 6 years, regardless of manufacturers warranty."

    Do you have a citation for that? As far as I understand it, 6 years is the length of time you're allowed to put in a court claim, not necessarily the length of time you can expect a product to last for. Lots of things fail well before that time, under perfectly normal usage conditons.

    Even so, it's a shaky bunch of claims. For starters, the described loss of functionality could be due to physical damage, a power surge, or something else outside of Apple's control. He seems to be highlighting the fact that similar models had known defects, but nothing suggests this model was one of them (unless that's part of the mysterious proof he's withheld from the initial claim). He claims loss of data, but given that the devices connected to the device are not claimed, that means he was using it as the sole source for that data - something I'm sure they advise against in the manual. The losses of the data from the iPhone sounds fishy (it would usually be backed up on one of his computers, which would then back up on the capsule - what happened to the data in his iTunes install?). On top of that, Apple did offer him a discounted replacement, which he refused even though his product was 2 years outside of warranty, yet he's gone out and purchased extra equipment for which he's now trying to get refund - should Apple really be liable for the cost of replacing equipment after he refused their own offer to replace it?

    Unless he can prove that Apple had advertised the product as a permanent, failproof device or that the model was one with a known defect, I don't see where he stands. Either he had totally unrealistic expectations of a hard drive-based device or he's just trying to get free money.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.