Seems to me this whole thing is about Canon wanting to avoid having any responsibility for warranty on items that they provide to dealers for resale to the public. It sounds a bit hollow and weird to me for them to be asking Adorama (or others) to cease using the term "refurbished" because it may imply that Canon has some responsibility for the warranty. Hello? If the product is coming from Canon, repaired by Canon and as Helen shared is likely pretty new, then why not offer a warranty from Canon (especially if the product is still within it's original warranty period)? It's not like Canon would be increasing any exposure beyond what they agree to offer for the first 12 months anyway. Does it really matter that they found a problem with a product themselves or some customer had to return it because there was an infant mortality failure? The product would have been under warranty anyway. Just because something may have failed on it during the early term of the warranty is no reason to shed that warranty IMO. Canon themselves should at least provide some portion of the warranty.


For me this whole discussion has raised more concern about Canon's practices than anything else. None of my thoughts are in any way critical of Adorama or their business. They appear to be wanting to do the right thing for the customer and took a risk on discussing it with us here. So, for me, Adorama has again demonstrated customer care and interest in the way we buy product. As for Canon...I'm looking a bit askew at them and wondering what is really behind all this stuff.


Maybe this is all about what some lawyer at Canon created...[{][st][+o(]


Rick