In fact, most Europeans, as well as residents of other countries, are mistaken about local guarantees for goods and services.
For example in Germany, the burden of proof falls on the buyer after 6 months, despite the 2 year "legal" warranty on the product. Is it necessary to write how this changes everything in the case of judicial debate?
For a simple example:
In France, the burden of proof remains on the seller (manufacturer) for 2 years. Except for used items.
Italy, Spain - just like in Germany - 6 months.
Poland - 12 months and the burden passes to the buyers.
Thus, a real full guarantee with the burden of proof of the fault of the buyer (presumption of guilt a priori):
In Germany, Italy, Spain - 6 months of a real guarantee for the buyer, when buyer does not prove the absence of faults.
In Poland 12 months.
And in France (and by the way, a much more socialist country ;), honest 2 years, as stated publicly by politicians.
You can also look through the consumer and civil codes of every EU country and find the same tricky inconsistencies.
In general, as real practice has shown, each additional year of warranty can cost, depending on the complexity of the product, from 3 to 10% of its selling price of the manufacturer, and not the speculator-seller (chains of speculators from the manufacturer to the counter in the general case), the price of which , has nothing to do with the actual cost of goods + margin from the manufacturer.