Marc:
To quote from the (European) Journal of Consumer Policy in regards to Jurgen's case: "The EC Directive on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees obliges sellers to deliver goods which are in conformity with the contract, and gives rights to the consumer where the goods are not in conformity with the contract. It also contains provisions as to the binding nature and transparency of commercial guarantees. The implementation date for this European private law quality regime was 1 January 2002."
Similarly, I think you will find that since the enacted Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act July 1975, if Hassleblad USA or Leica USA provides a <<written>> Warranty or Guarantee (the words are the same in law), their warranty may specify how they propose to handle defective product. However if a reasonable number of attempts to correct the issue fail, the product would have to be replaced. (Like the Automotive Lemon Law). If you sought a cash refund, it may be a pro rata refund, based on time and usage. Nevertheless, there is always an implied warranty of <<merchantability>> wherein the product must live up to reasonable expectations of its performance. These implied warranties however are somewhat harder to enforce as time goes by, because of the trouble in deciding reasonable expectation over a reasonable period of time. Nevertheless, as one author has said, a boat must float, and a television must produce a clear picture and clean sound ... for some time.
Finally, I would opine that although the professional and the amateur buyer both use the same currency to make the transaction or purchase contract, the pro probably has a better chance of bringing the additional threat of 'loss of trade/income' in a law suit. The M-M W Act also allows for the possibility of Class Action but I would only see that arising in a case when perhaps tens of thousands of consumers were affected.
It also goes without saying I suppose, that when you buy a product you are bound to read the warranty documentation beforehand because your act of purchase usually implies acceptance of product AND conditions of sale. The restrictions cannot be unreasonable - you don't have to return a Mercedes to Germany for a warranty repair - but in the case of a packable item, probably a return to the manufacturing site with the implied delays may be seen as reasonable. I will leave the matter of 'good faith' and 'customer satisfaction' aside.
Please note that I am unqualified, and I am not offering advice, (nor charging $350 an hour), I'm from the Australian bush and I know 'jack' about all this, so go see a professional. I think Jurgen probably has a good case. I think Leica has offered a (somewhat unusual) solution, and you have the burden of proof that they have not made good the design issues (however unpalatable it may be to us all). Your loss of income claim against Leica may have a chance, if they take an unreasonalbe time (what is unreasonable??)
Take two aspirin and lie down, maybe?
Cheers,
Colin}