Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok...I know I'm going to get flamed, but this is an honest to God honest question:

When companies like Apple ship a product with a serious (not game ending) flaw in their product, a class action lawsuit is generally filed to get the company to acknowledge the flaw, pay damages for flawed product, and rectify the situation in future iterations.

Has the Finecast issue risen to level of needing a class action lawsuit in the eyes of the community?

(I am asking this as dispassionately as possible.)

I don't believe its possible. GW is willing to replace the models you return at no cost. so what can you really sue them for? making a crappy product? that's still legal.

Hes got a point there. Since they will just replace anything you need them to its not like you are losing anything but time.

To be fair, for people like me who has no GW stores in their country that means it's a really long time.

I don't think so, we generally don't get things like that kicking off in the UK. The most that will happen is that Trading standards would get involved in a 'stop telling your customers to fix problems that should not be there' sort of way, or Advertising standards in a 'this blatantly isn't the finest quality range of miniatures' way. Neither would actually do much in terms of damages, or in terms of encouraging the company to stop selling the product.

Buy something. Get it replaced (by post) as many times as it takes. Ensure the cost to the company for the sales it makes is greater than the profit. Teach newbies the error of their crap-accepting ways, and get them to do the same. Pretty soon it'll become apparent to the decision makers that spin-cast resin although significantly cheaper to produce comes with hidden costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a law in the UK that protects consumers from faulty products by stating that advertised products must be "fit for purpose"?

I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea to what extend this fit for purpose rule can be stretched legally speaking. But reading and seeing all the complaints and seeing the pictures of the crappy casts GW often seems to ship, I wonder if finecast models are considered to be fit for purpose.

The short answer is "no"

The slightly longer answer is that no lawyer will bring this suit because there is no money in it for them. Your damages would be a $17 resin model. Class action classification (which is only established after an individual suit is brought and a motion to certify the class is granted by a judge) is generally, as a practical matter, reserved for actions where a product has harmed a large number of people. (Negligent design or manufacturing of a product; Dangerous medicine, etc...) The damages being sought in those cases run into the multi-million range. A poorly casted miniature isn't the same type of tortious negligence as exploding Coke bottles or Ford Pintos or tainted medication.

Further, almost any court action based on Finecast would be based on Article 2 of the UCC (if brought in the US). A court would likely find that while the product may indeed be in breach of one or a number of explicit or implied warranties of mechantibility or quality, that the breach is not material (read: important) because it only constitutes minor, fixable aesthetic details, and that GW has provided an adequate and equitable system of curing the problem with consumers that request an exchange. Further, there is likely an established custom and usage standard in the miniature molding business that allows for reasonable leeway in casting quality.

(1st year law student. Any actual lawyers should feel free to correct anything I've said.)

fiddler6291 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a law in the UK that protects consumers from faulty products by stating that advertised products must be "fit for purpose"?

I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea to what extend this fit for purpose rule can be stretched legally speaking. But reading and seeing all the complaints and seeing the pictures of the crappy casts GW often seems to ship, I wonder if finecast models are considered to be fit for purpose.

I'd think that "fit for purpose" depends on the purpose.

If you could demonstrate that you were buying them for purely show quality display purposes, like competition entry, you might be able to argue that.

If you buy them for actually gaming with, the physical model quality is far less important, and you'd probably struggle to convince people that some, correctable, defects made it unfit to game with.

I don't think that lawsuits are the instant reply to receiving a faulty product whether you're apple, GW or Santa.

And you know what GW would do? Price hike on all their models. And then loose more customers.And then we just wouldn't have any new models or codexs ever just so you could get your $17 for the model you got a free replacement of anyways.

However I will agree with the (far) above poster who stated that those of us who live far away have to wait too long just because GW ed up. It takes 2-3 weeks for something to ship here to Beijing. And if I have to send it back? Oh and then they'll send another? Even if they sent me another without waiting for the return of the bad one I'd wait a month to a month and a half for the model I want. If I can't find it in Finecast here I don't buy it. I'll convert it, no matter what it is (thank jeebus they don't have Valkyries in Finecast!) rather than take that risk. Luckily it's easy to do for IG as we have few models in Finecast that can't easy be mocked up.

Nevertheless.... Finecast. Just don't buy it. Ever. If a product is boycotted they won't sell it. If they don't sell it they won't make more of it.

This thread clearly needs more biccat.

UK law gives the consumer the right to return for a refund a product that is not of merchantable quality.

Since GW happily accept Finecast returns, they would seem to be following the law.

The issue is that adverts are legally considered to be "puffs" unless they make specific statements of fact.

Example: A car advert might display its fuel consumption. This is an objective fact that can be measured using standardised tests.

Calling Finecast "the finest models" is a statement of opinion, as there is no objective test for the claim.

The other things about the models being lighter and easier to assemble than metal are clearly true.

Thanks for the responses...especially even a first year law student It was a curiosity question not a call for litigation!