"Like new, with a guarantee." Five words, two claims, and both mean something other than what the person in front of the camera probably intends. One describes a grading the dealer gave themselves. The other describes a legal construction that can arise from advertising of all things.
Anyone selling refurbished goods through video is therefore working at a point where marketing language and legal terms use the same words and mean different things.
Three terms that merge into one on video
They come from three different sources and give the buyer three different things.
| Term | Where it comes from | What it gives the buyer |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory liability for defects | the law, regardless of the seller's will | claims in case of a defect, with a limitation period |
| Guarantee | a voluntary declaration by seller, manufacturer or a third party | exactly what that declaration says, on top of the law |
| Condition grade | the dealer's own system | an expectation about appearance, with no legal content of its own |
Statutory liability for defects
It is there without anyone promising it. You cannot bring it about with a video and you can only restrict it under narrow conditions.
The guarantee
It is voluntary and comes in addition to statutory liability. Section 443 of the German Civil Code describes it as an obligation somebody enters into in a declaration or in relevant advertising: to refund the price, exchange the item, repair it or provide services if the item does not have the described condition.
What matters is who can give it. Seller, manufacturer or another third party, and in resale that is often not the same party. A manufacturer's guarantee that existed on the new device is not automatically the refurbisher's guarantee.
The condition grade
"Like new", "very good", "good": a scale each dealer defines for themselves. It is useful and it is not a legal term. Two sellers can mean different scratches by the same word.
By contrast, statutory liability stands firm regardless of which label is on the goods. The grade describes an expectation, the law describes a claim, and the two cannot be offset against each other.
Why a video can create a guarantee
This is the point at which this category differs from all others, and it is rarely understood.
Section 443 attaches not only to a formal guarantee declaration but also to relevant advertising that was available before or at the conclusion of the contract. A video visible before the purchase, in which an undertaking is made, is advertising in that sense.
In practice: the line "if anything happens they just swap it" is not colour in the script. It describes an obligation, and it possibly describes it more broadly than the brand actually entered into.
The consequence for the brief is uncomfortable and unambiguous. Undertakings about exchange, refund or repair come word for word from the company. They are not drafted on set, not paraphrased and not improvised.
What can actually be shortened on used goods
Here too people shorten, and in both directions: sometimes it is said there are no claims at all on used goods, sometimes that everything is as with a new device.
Section 476(2) is more precise. Before a defect is notified, the limitation of claims for defects cannot be eased so as to produce a period of less than two years, or less than one year for used goods. And such an agreement is only effective where two things come together: the consumer was specifically informed of the shortening before submitting their contractual declaration, and the shortening was agreed in the contract expressly and separately.
Two conditions, cumulative, both before the purchase. A note in the small print after the order process does not satisfy that.
For the video, no duty to explain this construction follows. What follows is not to make any statement about periods that the contract does not support.
That is a real restriction, because "twelve months' warranty" is one of the most spoken lines in the category. It can be right and it can be wrong for the specific contract, and the person in front of the camera cannot know which. So that statement belongs on the product page, where it matches the contract, and not in the audio track, where it applies to every contract.
Showing the defect is a selling point
The reflex is to retouch away signs of use, cut them out or not film them at all. It is understandable and it costs revenue.
Anyone buying refurbished goods knows they are used. What they do not know is how used. That uncertainty is the real barrier to purchase, and it does not shrink with a flawless image, it grows, because it stays unanswered.
A close-up of the worst scratch, with a calm explanation of what the grade means, does three things at once: it answers the question, it substantiates the grading, and it creates trust in everything else said in the video. This is the only category in which a visible flaw is an argument.
What the shot looks like
No ring light and no softening filter, but daylight and a hand tilting the device so the surface catches raking light. Precisely the set-up every other category avoids.
The scale belongs in frame with it: what does this grade mean, where is the boundary above and below. Showing the worst permissible condition of a tier rather than the best sells fewer returns and more devices.
The objection that comes every time
"If we show the scratch, nobody buys." That is the worry, and it can be checked against the return rate rather than debated.
What actually happens is a shift: fewer people order, and significantly fewer send back. For a category in which returns eat the margin, that is the right direction. Count only orders and the scratch looks expensive; count contribution margin and it is the cheapest shot of the day.
What belongs in the brief
Five lines, and the category becomes manageable.
- Undertakings word for word, from the company, without rewording on set.
- Not a sentence about periods, neither on statutory liability nor on the guarantee.
- The condition grade is shown, not asserted, with a close-up.
- Manufacturer's guarantee and own guarantee are never mixed, not even in wording.
- What is in the box, filmed in full, because accessories are the most frequent dispute with used goods.
Sources
- Section 443 of the German Civil Code, guarantee
- Section 476 of the German Civil Code, deviating agreements
- Section 437 of the German Civil Code, buyer's rights in case of defects
Checked on 10 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice and does not replace an examination of the individual case. Where this guide and the official source diverge, the source prevails.
