Direct answer: An equipment after-sales/SLA page is not "one-year warranty, lifetime maintenance". The website page should state: SLA metrics (response, on-site arrival, repair, spare parts, remote, escalation), warranty scope and term (whole machine/parts/wear parts/human/environment), response and arrival times (business hours/24×7/region/remote/on-site), spare-parts supply (stock, price, post-discontinuation, alternatives), what happens if it cannot be repaired (repair/replace/return/price reduction), how damages/line-stop losses link, preventive maintenance/training, service reports/acceptance, and escalation/disputes. On the law: a party that fails to perform or performs non-conformingly bears continued performance, remedial measures or damages (Civil Code Article 577); where performance is non-conforming, the parties follow the contract; if unclear, the aggrieved party may reasonably choose repair, rework, replacement, return, price reduction or remuneration reduction according to the subject matter and loss (Article 582); after remedial measures, other losses are compensated (Article 583); if delivered goods do not meet quality requirements, the buyer may claim breach under Articles 582–584 (Article 617); where an inspection period is agreed, the buyer must notify non-conformity within it, and failure is deemed conformity; without an agreed period, notice must be given within a reasonable period after discovery, and failure to notify within two years of receipt is deemed conformity unless a quality guarantee period applies; the seller's knowledge removes the notice limit (Article 621); an agreed inspection period that is too short to allow full inspection is only an appearance-defect objection period (Article 622). Product Quality Law Article 26 makes producers responsible for quality; Article 40 requires sellers to repair, replace or return products lacking performance, not meeting stated standards/descriptions/samples, while contracts between producers/sellers may provide otherwise. Information is current to 2026-11-07. This is a review of public rules and page practice, not legal or after-sales advice; the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control.
This guide is for procurement, equipment, EHS, quality and website teams at equipment, electronics/electrical, automotive, medical device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby areas. This page most often misses metrics, scope, time limits, spare parts, the "cannot repair" fallback and line-stop losses, ending up as "one-year warranty".
First define metrics: response, arrival, repair, spare parts, remote, escalation; then scope: whole machine/parts/wear parts/human/environment; finally the fallback: replace/return/reduce price, damages/line-stop loss, post-discontinuation parts. The website should state metrics, scope, time limits, parts, fallback and escalation—not "one-year warranty".
How does this page relate to installation acceptance, spare parts and quality claims?
The after-sales/SLA page answers "how fast after delivery, who repairs, what if it cannot be repaired, how parts are supplied"; the equipment installation/commissioning and acceptance page answers FAT/SAT, site conditions and training handover; the spare-parts list and recommended stock page answers criticality, lead time, discontinuation and consignment; the supplier quality claim/chargeback page answers liability, evidence, amount, set-off and disputes. The SLA page is the entry point for post-delivery service commitments; an installation or spare-parts page cannot replace it.
Common breakpoints: only "one-year warranty"; no response/arrival limits; no business hours/region; no spare parts price/post-discontinuation; no replace/return if unrepairable; no line-stop loss; no signed service report; no escalation. Separate "metrics—scope—time limits—parts—fallback—evidence—escalation"; then procurement, equipment, EHS and quality share one playbook.
| Page | Answers | Key content | Cannot replace |
|---|---|---|---|
| After-sales/SLA | What happens/how fast | Metrics, scope, limits, parts, fallback, escalation | Installation/parts/claims |
| Installation/acceptance | FAT/SAT/handover | Site, commissioning, training | After-sales response |
| Spare parts/stock | What/how fast | Criticality, lead time, discontinuation, consignment | Repair liability |
| Quality claim/chargeback | Liability/evidence/amount | Nonconformity, claim, set-off | SLA metrics |
| Training/handover | Can they use it/manuals | Courses, assessment, documents | Fault repair |
| Contract/damages | Breach consequences | Damages, loss, termination | Daily service |
This page map is editorial; the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control.
How should SLA metrics be defined?
At least: response time (report to confirmation/remote access), arrival time (confirmation to engineer on site), repair time (arrival to restoration/temporary solution), spare-parts arrival, remote-support availability, escalation time (L1/L2/L3/vendor), service window (business hours/24×7/holidays) and coverage area. Each metric should state the start point, unit, target, consequence of missing it and evidence. Do not write "respond promptly/arrive as soon as possible"—that cannot be accepted.
Acceptance checks: metric list; start; target; window; area; consequence; evidence; exceptions. Common gaps: no start; vague target; no window; unclear area; no consequence; no record; unclear exceptions.
| Metric | Suggested wording | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Response | Confirm/remote within X hours | Ticket timestamp | "Prompt" |
| Arrival | On site within X hours after confirmation | Sign-in/location | No limit |
| Repair | Restore/temporary fix within X hours | Ticket | No target |
| Spare parts | X days/stock | Logistics/stock | No commitment |
| Remote | Available hours/access | Record | None |
| Escalation | L1/L2/L3/vendor time | Escalation record | No path |
| Window/area | Hours/24×7/coverage | Clause | Unclear |
SLA metrics are editorial; the contract/SLA controls.
How should warranty scope and term be accepted?
State: whole-machine warranty, key parts/wear parts separately, start point (acceptance/delivery/commissioning), extension options, in/out of scope (human damage/misoperation/environment/consumables/third-party modification), whether repair/replacement restarts the warranty, and whether software/firmware updates are included. Civil Code Article 617 routes quality nonconformity to Articles 582–584; Article 621's quality guarantee period affects the notice period; Article 622 provides that an agreed inspection period too short for full inspection is only an appearance-defect objection period. The page should state "warranty ≠ all costs free" and who bears travel/labour/parts/freight.
Acceptance checks: whole machine; parts; wear parts; start; extension; exclusions; restart; software; costs. Common gaps: whole machine only; wear parts unclear; start dispute; no exclusions; no restart; software excluded; costs unclear.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whole machine | Term/start | Contract | Start dispute |
| Parts | Key/wear parts | List | Mixed |
| Extension | Option/price | Quote | None |
| Exclusions | Human/environment/modification | Clause | Unclear |
| Restart | After repair/replacement | Clause | No restart |
| Software/firmware | Updates/support | Clause | Excluded |
| Costs | Travel/labour/parts/freight | Clause | Unclear |
Warranty scope/term is editorial; the contract, SLA and Civil Code Articles 617, 621 and 622 control.
How should response, arrival and remote support be accepted?
Response/arrival should state: reporting channel (phone/email/portal/WeChat), service window (business hours/24×7/holidays), response start (submission/confirmation), remote support (VPN/remote desktop/data security), on-site arrival (region/traffic/access/safety induction), and failure handling (escalation/compensation/third party). Remote support should address data/access/confidentiality and not assume "remote anytime". On-site service should follow contractor/safety/confidentiality rules. The page should state who reports, who takes the ticket, who arrives, how fast and what they bring.
Acceptance checks: channel; window; start; remote; on-site; area; access/safety; failure; records. Common gaps: phone only; no window; unclear start; remote unauthorised; no arrival limit; access/safety missing; no failure handling; no record.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Channel | Phone/email/portal | Entry | Personal mobile only |
| Window | Business/24×7 | Clause | None |
| Start | Submission/confirmation | Ticket | Unclear |
| Remote | Method/authorisation/data | Record | Unauthorised |
| On-site | Limit/area/access | Sign-in | No limit |
| Safety/confidentiality | Induction/escort/NDA | Record | None |
| Failure | Escalation/compensation | Record | None |
Response/arrival is editorial; the contract/SLA and site rules control.
How should spare-parts supply be accepted?
State: critical spare-parts list, recommended stock, price/discount, lead time, consignment/VMI, post-discontinuation supply years, alternative/upgrade parts, emergency allocation, freight/duty and warranty. Parts discontinuation is a common risk; the page should state "supply for at least X years after discontinuation/last order window/alternatives". Parts prices should not be just "by quotation"; provide discounts/caps/price-adjustment mechanism. Link to the spare-parts page without duplicating it.
Acceptance checks: list; stock; price; lead time; consignment; post-discontinuation; alternatives; emergency; freight; warranty. Common gaps: no list; no price; unclear lead time; no post-discontinuation; no alternatives; no emergency channel; freight unclear; warranty unclear.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| List | Critical/wear | List | None |
| Stock | Recommended/consignment | Agreement | None |
| Price | Discount/cap/adjustment | Clause | By quote |
| Lead time | Normal/emergency | Commitment | Unclear |
| Post-discontinuation | Years/last order | Clause | Not stated |
| Alternatives/upgrades | Plan/validation | Record | None |
| Freight/warranty | Who pays/how long | Clause | Unclear |
Spare-parts supply is editorial; the spare-parts agreement/contract controls.
What if it cannot be repaired?
Civil Code Article 582 allows the aggrieved party to reasonably choose repair, rework, replacement, return, price reduction or remuneration reduction; Article 583 provides compensation for other losses after remedial measures; Article 617 routes quality nonconformity to these liabilities. The page should state: repair attempts/time cap, replacement/return/price reduction if still unrepaired, costs/freight/disassembly, depreciation, temporary/alternative equipment and line-stop loss. Do not just say "responsible for repair"; state what happens if repair fails. Product Quality Law Article 40 also provides repair/replacement/return, but a different contract agreement prevails.
Acceptance checks: attempts; time cap; replacement; return; price reduction; costs; depreciation; alternative; line stop; records. Common gaps: repair only; no attempts; no time cap; no replacement/return; costs unclear; depreciation unclear; no alternative; no line-stop.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attempts | X attempts | Ticket | None |
| Time cap | X days/hours | Ticket | None |
| Replacement | Conditions/model | Clause | None |
| Return | Conditions/refund | Clause | None |
| Price reduction | Ratio/calculation | Clause | None |
| Costs | Freight/disassembly/depreciation | Clause | Unclear |
| Alternative/line stop | Temporary plan/loss | Record | None |
Fallback follows Civil Code Articles 582, 583 and 617 and Product Quality Law Article 40; the contract controls.
How should damages, line-stop losses and escalation be accepted?
SLA misses should have consequences: service credits/damages/extended warranty/replacement/third-party repair costs; line-stop losses should state whether compensated, caps and evidence (output/hours/alternative cost); escalation should state L1/L2/L3/vendor/management and time limits; disputes should state jurisdiction/arbitration. Damages can link to the contract's damages page without double counting; excessive/low damages may be adjusted under Civil Code Article 585, and Contract Part Interpretation Articles 64 and 65 set the burden of proof and a 30% reference. The page should state how a miss is calculated, how line stop is proved and whom to escalate to.
Acceptance checks: consequence; credit/damages; line stop; cap; evidence; escalation; dispute; records. Common gaps: no consequence; no line-stop compensation; no cap; unclear evidence; no escalation; no dispute clause; no records.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miss | Credit/damages/extension | Clause | No consequence |
| Line stop | Compensation/cap | Clause | No compensation |
| Evidence | Output/hours/alternative | Record | Unclear |
| Third-party repair | Cost/authorisation | Clause | None |
| Escalation | L1/L2/L3/vendor | Path | None |
| Dispute | Jurisdiction/arbitration | Clause | None |
| Records | Ticket/timestamps | System | Missing |
Miss/line-stop is editorial; the contract/SLA and damages clause control.
How should preventive maintenance, training and service reports be accepted?
SLA is not only "repair when broken"; it also includes preventive maintenance (inspection/service cycle/content/records), training (operation/maintenance/safety), remote monitoring/alerts (if applicable), service reports (ticket, symptom, root cause, action, parts, signature, closure) and monthly/quarterly service reviews (response/repair/repeat failures). The page should state how often maintenance is done, who does it, who receives records and how performance is evaluated. Service reports should support SLA evidence and claims.
Acceptance checks: cycle; content; training; monitoring; ticket; root cause; signature; review; KPIs. Common gaps: repair only; no records; no training; no monitoring; unsigned ticket; no root cause; no review; unclear KPIs.
| Item | What to confirm | Evidence | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance | Cycle/content | Plan | None |
| Training | Operation/maintenance/safety | Record | Missing |
| Monitoring/alerts | Whether/scope | System | None |
| Ticket | Symptom/action/parts | Ticket | Incomplete |
| Root cause | Analysis/corrective | Report | None |
| Signature/closure | Customer confirmation | Signature | None |
| Review | Monthly/quarterly KPIs | Report | None |
Preventive maintenance/reports are editorial; the contract/SLA controls.
How should the after-sales/SLA page be written?
Suggested content: (1) scope/equipment list; (2) SLA metrics; (3) warranty scope/term; (4) response/arrival/remote; (5) spare-parts supply; (6) fallback if unrepairable; (7) damages/line stop/escalation; (8) preventive maintenance/training; (9) service reports/acceptance; (10) disputes/contact/version. The public page explains rules and entry points; it should not publish customer equipment locations, fault data or personal information; after login, customers can report faults/check tickets. State "the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control"; do not write "one-year warranty/lifetime maintenance".
Use consistent English terms (after-sales, SLA, response time, on-site arrival, repair time, spare parts, warranty, replacement, refund, preventive maintenance, escalation, uptime) and state the review date. Link to installation acceptance, spare parts and quality claims, but do not turn the SLA page into an installation page.
| Section | What to write | Evidence | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/equipment | Applicable/list | Contract | Vague |
| SLA | Response/arrival/repair | Tickets | "Prompt" |
| Warranty | Whole/parts/start | Clause | One year only |
| Spare parts | List/price/discontinuation | Agreement | By quote |
| Fallback | Repair/replace/return/reduce | Clause | Repair only |
| Miss | Damages/line stop/escalation | Clause | No consequence |
| Maintenance/reports | Service/ticket/review | Records | None |
| Contact/version | Entry/date | Page | None |
This structure is editorial; external statements must be truthful and verifiable, per the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding.
What must not be written?
High-risk claims: "one-year warranty, lifetime maintenance" (lifetime maintenance has no scope/cost/time limit); "prompt response/as soon as possible" (cannot be accepted); "we will deal with it if repair fails" (no fallback); "spare parts by quotation" (no price constraint); "all line-stop losses compensated" (subject to contract/foreseeability/causation); "remote access anytime" (data/authorisation/security); "all free during warranty" (wear parts/human/freight may be excluded); "publish customer fault data" (sensitive). These are inaccurate or misstate scope, time limits or liability.
Safer wording: "This page applies to [equipment/list]; SLA [response/arrival/repair]; warranty [whole/parts/start]; spare parts [list/price/post-discontinuation]; fallback [replace/return/reduce]; miss [damages/line stop/escalation]; maintenance [service/ticket/review]; contact [entry]. The contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control." External promotion must comply with advertising and fair-competition rules; customer equipment/fault data needs authorisation or redaction.
Go-live acceptance checklist
Ten checks: scope, SLA metrics, warranty scope/term, response/arrival/remote, spare parts, fallback, miss/line stop/escalation, preventive maintenance, service reports, page wording and version. Each needs an owner, evidence and review date. The pass condition is not "the page says one-year warranty", but that procurement, equipment, EHS and quality can report, time, escalate, claim, replace/return from the page.
Before go-live, run one real (anonymised) equipment item through: report → response → arrival → repair → spare part → miss → escalation → report. Any step that fails is a gap in the page or SLA.
| Check | Pass condition | Evidence | If it fails |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Equipment/list | Contract | Add list |
| SLA | Response/arrival/repair | Tickets | Add metrics |
| Warranty | Whole/parts/start | Clause | Add clause |
| Response/arrival | Channel/limits/remote | Record | Add process |
| Spare parts | List/price/discontinuation | Agreement | Add agreement |
| Fallback | Replace/return/reduce | Clause | Add clause |
| Miss | Damages/line stop/escalation | Clause | Add clause |
| Maintenance/reports | Service/ticket/review | Records | Add records |
| Wording/version | No "lifetime maintenance" | Page | Rewrite |
| Contact | Entry/date | Page | Add entry |
This checklist is editorial; the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control.
Who should read this, who should not, and what decisions does it support?
It suits procurement, equipment, EHS, quality and website teams at equipment, electronics/electrical, automotive, medical device, hardware, chemical, packaging and export manufacturers in Changzhou and nearby areas; also companies drafting after-sales/SLA clauses for the first time, or facing "slow response / cannot repair / parts discontinued / line-stop loss". It does not suit teams that do not buy equipment or sign after-sales terms, or those wanting one page to replace legal/after-sales advice.
Read it if you are building an after-sales/SLA page; only one-year warranty is written; no response/arrival limits; no parts price/post-discontinuation; no fallback if unrepairable; no line-stop loss; service reports are unsigned. Skip it if you treat "lifetime maintenance" as a promise, "prompt" as a metric, "all line-stop losses" as the default, or want to publish customer fault data. It supports self-review of SLA, warranty, response/arrival, parts, fallback, miss, maintenance, reports and page wording.
FAQ
How should after-sales response time be set?
Set it by equipment criticality/line-stop impact, stating the start point (report submission/confirmation), target (X hours to confirm/remote, X hours on site, X hours to restore/temporary fix), service window (business hours/24×7), coverage area, consequence and evidence (ticket timestamps). Do not write only "respond promptly".
When does the warranty period start?
The contract should state the start point (acceptance/delivery/commissioning) and term (whole machine/key parts/wear parts separately), whether repair/replacement restarts the warranty, and whether software/firmware updates are included. Civil Code Article 621's quality guarantee period affects the notice period; the contract controls.
What is excluded from warranty?
Common exclusions: human damage/misoperation, out-of-scope use, unsuitable environment, consumables/wear parts, third-party modification and failure to maintain. The page should state exclusions and costs (travel/labour/parts/freight), not just "one-year warranty".
Can we replace/return if it cannot be repaired?
Civil Code Article 582 allows the aggrieved party to reasonably choose repair, rework, replacement, return, price reduction or remuneration reduction; Article 583 provides compensation for other losses after remedial measures; Article 617 routes quality nonconformity to these liabilities. The contract may set repair attempts/time caps and replacement/return/price reduction if still unrepaired; Product Quality Law Article 40 also provides repair/replacement/return, with contract terms prevailing.
Can line-stop losses be claimed?
It depends on the contract and whether the loss is foreseeable, causally linked and mitigated. Civil Code Article 584 limits damages to the loss caused by the breach (including expected profits) and what was foreseeable at formation; the SLA may set caps/calculation/evidence. Do not assume "all losses".
What if spare parts are discontinued?
The contract/spare-parts agreement should state post-discontinuation supply years, last-order window, alternative/upgrade parts, stock/consignment, price/lead time. Discontinuation is a common risk; the page should state "supply for at least X years/alternatives", not just "by quotation".
One-sentence takeaway
A Changzhou manufacturer's equipment after-sales/SLA page is not about "one-year warranty". It should turn SLA metrics, warranty scope/term, response/arrival/remote, spare parts, unrepairable fallback, miss/line-stop/escalation, preventive maintenance and service reports into a reviewable checklist—so procurement, equipment, EHS and quality can report, time, escalate, claim, replace and return.
Method and limitations
This is a review of public rules and page practice, not legal or after-sales advice. No undisclosed customer, equipment location, fault or price data were used; processes, tables and acceptance items are editorial, not legal conclusions. Breach/repair/replacement/quality nonconformity/inspection periods follow Civil Code Articles 577, 582, 583, 617, 621 and 622; producer quality responsibility/repair/replacement/return follow Product Quality Law Articles 26 and 40; the contract, SLA, evidence and the court's finding control. This article does not determine whether a specific fault is covered by warranty; companies should handle it under the contract and site records.
Sources and scope
Information is current to 2026-11-07. The following are official pages; their text controls.
- Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Supreme People's Court. Breach liability (Article 577), repair/replacement/return/price reduction (Article 582), loss after remedies (Article 583), quality nonconformity (Article 617), inspection period/notice (Articles 621, 622).
- Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China (2018 revision): NPC website. Producer quality responsibility (Article 26), repair/replacement/return (Article 40).
- Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Part of the Civil Code (in force 2023-12-05): Supreme People's Court. Burden of proof in adjustment (Article 64), 30% reference (Article 65).