The one good thing about these forums is that there is no shortage of opinions on these sort of matters.
What I do find surprising is the so called 'level of protection' many seem to think that they are entitled to, through contract law, or even consumer protection legislation, especially after the fact, or when there has been an unsatisfactory purchase.
One of the factors in this is the mismatch of supply to demand. Witness the fact that virtually any advertisement of a particular firearm by forum dealers brings a virtual feeding frenzy of gunnutz willing to compromise their financial future to buy the latest deal, some of which have well known and documented problems.
While many of the vendors have very good ethics whet dealing with purchasers, the less than ethical will not really care, because they know that there are people out there that do not do their homework, and are likely to buy on impulse, more than on an informed basis. This is why consumer protection legislation exists.
Even with this sort of legislation, the playing field is slanted heavily in the favour of the manufacturer/vendor. Two quick examples of this from the automotive world: New Ford F250/350 diesels that have premature head gasket failure between 60 to 120K, the repair requiring the dealer to remove the entire cab in order to get at the engine to repair. Another example is the Chevy Astro van fuel pump issue. Those that have accidentally run the pump dry will know how absurd the repair is for this van. The pump is actually in the tank, and requires the removal of the tank because access to the pump is from the top. Even though the part that fails in the pump costs 15 cents to make, it is not available to purchase, so the entire pump must be replaced at approximately 800 dollars, plus all the necessary labour to access the pump. These auto manufacturers do this purposefully, in order to enable their dealerships to extract the maximum amount of money from their customers. Consumers should be screaming at the top of their lungs at this sort of retarded engineering and design.
Many of us on this site are against the nanny state getting in our business when it comes to personal freedoms. But should we need protection from each other, we scream about the laws that are not being enforced. Especially when we are the ones responsible for this in the first place. I am sure that some of us see the hypocrisy in this, while some will not.
The point I was making as a response to this post was simple. In light of a known defect with the merchandise being purchased, the purchaser chose not to secure guarantees from the vendor regarding said defect, even though he was advised of the possibility of this defect's existence. I understand the principle of good faith, but in this case, good faith doesn't seem to be worth the cost of reparations.
Too many people post about being victims after the fact, when they have not done their homework, or obtained guarantees to protect their investment.
I see equal fault on both sides here.