Refurbishing Broken Appliances/Electronics

I recycle just about anything that has a motor and runs on electricity. I have a few times replaced a dryer door switch or washer pump taking one from another machine like it but when I sell it I have to assure the buyer it works and run it for them. That means I am offering some sort of verbal warranty on a machine I really don't know that much about. It could stop working as soon as they get it home. People do not like payong money for something being sold as is. I have found that older machines have literally zero resale value even if they work. Someone might buy one if you throw in the cord and pay you $20 bucks for it and take a chance but if you put any time or parts in it there is no way to recoup that investment. Newer late model stuff I aquire will sell usually as is to someone who does repair them for a living or has a shop and can buy parts cheap but I rarely get two of the same machines for parts interchange. There is a man in my area that buys all of the late model scrap machines I have for a flat $50 bucks and he assumes the risk. Keep in mind unless the machine is in someone's home in use it has something wrong with it that someone might have determined was not worth the value of the machine to repair it. My buyer will not buy front loading washers that have bad tub bearings or cracked tanks. They are very costly to repair he says. Unless you will plan to go out and haul scrap appliances given to you for free to tinker with you will have to buy some to repair taking the same risks my buyer does. One might be repairable but the other might not be leaving you stuck with a machine you bought that is worthless. Good luck with your ventures. I never try to talk anyone out of their dreams. From experience the used appliance business does come with certain risks.

Originally Posted by alloy2

Many years ago I used to repair appliances and decided that in my retirement years would get back into it, that is until a discovered so many brands of appliances are recalled due to fire hazards and or other disastrous problems like self destructing during a spin cycle.

I always gave a six month warranty on a reconditioned appliance, I'm of the belief any warranty given by me these days would be sure to include me in any civil action taken against the manufacture by way of extension.

I'm not a lawyer and have no desire to put my thoughts on this matter to a legal test via the courts.

As for flat-screen TV's I recently spoke with a buddy that repairs them putting the question to him which brands I should avoid. His reply was everything with the exception of Samsung and Panisonic.

I once spent $100 on a broken washer because I needed a $300 part off it

Originally Posted by Zenmure

There are risks but that's true for most things. I'll do my research and try to do everything right. I hadn't considered how recalls might affect repairs, i'll be sure to look into that. Your experiences are really helpful, thanks.

With the recall lists of faulty appliances publicly posted on the Internet, I would expect the courts would rule that the repair shop has ample access.

Here's a prime example of liability being passed over to the vendor, in this case Amazon is the defendant for having sold a faulty third party product. If your shop carried liability insurance I'm positive they would find enough wiggle room to avoid paying any claims made on your behalf.

Amazon Sued After Hoverboard Fire Burns Down Family's House | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Amazon Sued After Hoverboard Fire Burns Down Family's House

A Tennessee family is suing Amazon after their $1 million house was destroyed in a fire caused by a "hoverboard" toy purchased on the site.
According to The Tennessean, the Fox family of Nashville claims that Amazon knew the hoverboard in question was a dangerous product, but sold it anyway. In January, the hoverboard caught fire, destroying all of the family's home and all their personal possessions.

The father, Brian Fox, rescued two of his children from the blaze.

The Foxes contend that Amazon and its various subsidiaries had information about the danger of this product well in advance of the January 9 fire, and on top of that, they had notice, they should have known the product was being misrepresented on their website," Steve Anderson, of the Nashville law firm Anderson & Reynolds PLC, told The Tennessean.