Do not buy any Sonus Faber used

This is not new. But I suspect that they just want to be able to say no at their discretion. I take it as their version of the “right to refuse service to anyone” sign in a restaurant.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1258638486&openfrom&5&4#5

How does one know that the speakers he is buying used, in the classifieds, were originally purchased from a Sumiko authorized dealer?

If a person moves to the US with his speakers purchased through an authorized European distributor, can Sumiko refuse to provide parts?

I would love to see this tested legally. I know that there are some here who think a company has the right to make any condition it wants, but thats not true, and there would be huge problems if it was. Judges like to make rulings based on industry standards. Who reads every document set down before them. Really, think about it. We sign stuff all the time, everywhere, without giving it a thought. What stops companies from taking advantage of that. "Let the buyer beware" is not a legal defense and if it was, the marketplace couldn’t exist. Judges rule against this kind of thing all the time simply because it is unreasonable.

"It must be important for companies to protect their distributors and their territories.”

Agreed. And if there is a problem, then they need to tighten up their distribution chain. They simply cannot place that burden on the end user. They are the manufacturer. Every speaker out there was originally in their possession. They chose who to sell them to. If the distribution network is not functioning as intended, then it is their problem. Broaden your thinking and really consider the precedence, legal ramifications and potential for abuse. No contract can cover everything. People buy and sell things all the time based on very reasonable assumptions, including that a company's repair facility will offer repair. A buyer has certain rights based on nothing more that the reasonable expectations of “this is the way it’s alway been done”. And I suspect strongly that even if a company was allowed an exception, it would be with the responsibility of making sure that their oddball policy was well understood by every prospective buyer.

There are too many ways that uninformed customers could unintentionally buy a grey market product. While the purpose of this policy might be focused on the grey market, its scope is too broad.

Like I suggested in a prior post, I would be surprised if the policy was rigidly enforced. I suspect that it's more of calculated deterrent. The problem is that it has deterred me from ever considering a Sonus Faber product.

"The notice is hard to miss.”

Yet so many people have. And what about craigslist? Before an authorized purchase takes place, is the prospective buyer asked to sign off on this policy? When this policy was enacted, were the authorized owners of every Sonus Faber speaker warned not to lose his receipts, and that the resaleability of their speakers was being diminished. Were these owners compensated.

When I buy a new car, the potential resale price of a model is always part of the negotiation. In fact, I consider that one of the most important factors in my decision. If the resale value of my car hits the skids due to a new policy, I want to be compensated.

I’m surprised that some speaker savante hasn’t made a good business for himself specializing in the repair of Sonus Faber’s bastards.

I’m sorry if this is insensitive - I really do feel for you Naxos41 - but I have to ask. Just on principal, why would any member of this community purchase any Sumiko product?