I just bought a Swanny LED Desk lamp 18330. It has a weighted conical base, long flexible neck and LED light on the end. It has a separate power supply. The installation requires you to plug the power supply into the mains power, plug the low voltage lead from it into the lamp, turn on the power at the wall, turn on the lamp at its switch.
Among quite a bit of waffly nonsense about using it indoors and keeping it away from children and the infirm there is this disclaimer.
"This warranty is only for products installed by a qualified electrical contractor and operated within the guidelines ⊠"
and later on âProof of installation by qualified personnel may be requiredâ
This is a desk lamp, it comes with a standard plug. To get an electrician to come to the house and plug it in would cost more than the lamp.
This is possibly a generic warranty statement for all their products, including some that may electrician installation.
State/Territory governments have regulations in relation to what can be done by any consumer and specifically by a licensed electrician. Plugging in a desk light can lawfully done by any person, and not limited to a licensed electrician.
If one can lawfully plug in a desk lamp, the government requirements will possibly override those in the manufacturerâs warranty. Therefore it could easily be argued that the requirement in the warranty are unreasonable and invalid.
Brilliant Lighting has a personal history of curious warranty paperwork.
I agree with @phb that it is probably their standard worst case text, the ACL overrides it, but that does not address your curiosity whether it is reasonable or legal for this product. It could be included to dissuade people from trying to get their warranty rights.
I bought one of their products (2014) whereby the box stated â2 years warranty with details insideâ, but the booklet inside stated only 1 year but otherwise like your warranty. It was purchased from Bunnings and Bunnings affirmed 2 years product replacement if it failed - bring in the receipt and faulty unit.
4 years on it has not missed a beat excepting the nasty âplatingâ on a plastic part has long since worn away where rain hits. Never got to test the Bunnings statement about warranty service but at the time I promised myself to avoid anything further from this company as a matter of principle.
Well âIgnorance of the law is no excuseâ?
In extending that to âGeneral Ignoranceâ is that a step to far, or just what a âreasonableâ person might think?
As far as I know, it isnât illegalâŠnamely, specifically expressed in law as being prohibited. However, unfortunately no on two points in relation to warranty.
The second is one possibly would not be still alive to see whether the lampâs manufacturer/seller would accept responsibly and therefore make repairs under warranty.
As noted by @PhilT the ACCC who basically administer the ACL are always on the lookout for unfair contract terms. The T&Cs are a contract as to the use of the product and the law overrides terms which are unenforceable ie requiring an electrician to install a consumer installable good would be an unfair term. If they insisted that you actually did use an electrician and therefore you would not have bought the goods if you had been aware of the issue at purchase, you would then be entitled to a refund which could also include the cost of returning the goods as per the ACL. "A product or good has a major problem when:
it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if theyâd known about it"
&
"You are entitled to return a product if you believe that there is a problem. You are generally responsible for returning the product if it can be posted or easily returned. You are entitled to recover reasonable postage or transportation costs from the business if the product is confirmed to have a problem, so keep your receipts.
When a product is too large, too heavy or too difficult to remove, the business is responsible for paying the shipping costs or collecting the product within a reasonable time of being notified of the problem."
I think it is fairly clear that this is a generic warranty that Brilliant use incautiously even when some conditions are quite inapplicable to a given product. I suggest the motive is carelessness not conspiracy. I agree that some terms of the warranty as written are probably not enforceable.
Would this carelessness on their part result in some buyers failing to claim for unrelated defects because, having plugged it in themself, they mistakenly thought that they had no claim? We can only speculate. My guess is no, almost all would take it back for a refund and hope for the best. Few read warranties, those who do are not going to be put off, the rest will just take it back anyway.
My point is stupidity may be lawful.
