Logitech being big meanies! Won't honour warranty.

wealdroam

railbuff wrote: »

that would be more than he is due

buyer paid £49 had them 11 months of a 24 month warranty so

£49 divide by 24 = £2.04 per month

so 13 months left x £2.04 = £26.54

You logic is faulty.

You are assuming that the life of the product is the length of the warranty.

railbuff

wealdroam wrote: »

You logic is faulty.

You are assuming that the life of the product is the length of the warranty.

this is how most will work it out as this is all they can go off, but will mostly add a little extra to this, mines not far off what vuvuzela stated

robo989

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated

I'm a little miffed if I'm honest. My real issue is that the UE900 model was released as the Tripple Fi 10 model was discontinued, it is basically an updated version of the same earphones. It wasn't released as a higher end model, the RRP of both is the same.

I know you guys are talking about SOGA and the legal stuff and I know on those terms I don't have a leg to stand on.

The UE900 could just as easily have been called the Tripple Fi 10.1 for the purpose of my argument. They are on par with each other in quality. Please disregard the price paid, that was a promotion. It was not to get rid of old stock.

Logitech often do it with products that are very popular still or to stimulate trade etc.

Anyway, no probs

Sorry if I appeared a little rude and I don't mean to sound condescending, I posted here more on the goodwill aspect and to expressly state I'm not here for a free lunch. I'm here for a replacement to equal quality, to do this now will cost me in the region of £200 now. I think this is unfair in a goodwill way, I know the law isn't on my side and I was curious what others thought, would you feel short changed by this?

Bit disappointed I spose but there we go

robo989

railbuff wrote: »

so they will replace like for like with a product they no longer sell, how can they do this. it was blemished item (SALES ITEM) which they no longer stock so they offered a refund which is all they can do in this case.

The replacement of like for like would be giving me the UE900s since they were the successor to the Tripple Fi 10. That is my only point, the UE900 isn't a higher end product - it's the same target market, it was released to replace the Tripple Fi 10, NOT added in the range as a higher end alternative.

railbuff

robo989 wrote: »

The replacement of like for like would be giving me the UE900s since they were the successor to the Tripple Fi 10.

no it would not as the UE900 is a different product

bris

I wouldn't feel short changed, no, I would be grateful that the company were offering me a pair worth twice as much as what I paid in the first place, or a full refund. To me this is excellent customer service by them, your reasoning is flawed in thinking you can get a different pair just because they are the updated model to your old ones.

Personaly I would now make you take a pro rata refund for the 11 months use you have had from them, as they are legally entitled to do, but they wont so bite their hand off for the offer they are making.

neilmcl

robo989 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated

I'm a little miffed if I'm honest. My real issue is that the UE900 model was released as the Tripple Fi 10 model was discontinued, it is basically an updated version of the same earphones. It wasn't released as a higher end model, the RRP of both is the same.

I know you guys are talking about SOGA and the legal stuff and I know on those terms I don't have a leg to stand on.

The UE900 could just as easily have been called the Tripple Fi 10.1 for the purpose of my argument. They are on par with each other in quality. Please disregard the price paid, that was a promotion. It was not to get rid of old stock.

Logitech often do it with products that are very popular still or to stimulate trade etc.

Anyway, no probs

Sorry if I appeared a little rude and I don't mean to sound condescending, I posted here more on the goodwill aspect and to expressly state I'm not here for a free lunch. I'm here for a replacement to equal quality, to do this now will cost me in the region of £200 now. I think this is unfair in a goodwill way, I know the law isn't on my side and I was curious what others thought, would you feel short changed by this?

Bit disappointed I spose but there we go

Will you be editing the thread title now, as this doesn't reflect reality?

Guardsman

neilmcl wrote: »

Will you be editing the thread title now, as this doesn't reflect reality?

Just like the way they changed the name of the black Labrador in the latest film version of Dambusters.:D

railbuff

neilmcl wrote: »

Will you be editing the thread title now, as this doesn't reflect reality?

Yes i have to agree here, title should be changed as they are honouring the warranty as the warranted item is no longer made or available so they have offered a refund of the full price paid or to take this off the cost of a higher spec product.

OlliesDad

railbuff wrote: »

this is how most will work it out as this is all they can go off, but will mostly add a little extra to this, mines not far off what vuvuzela stated

So if you buy a TV for £1000 and it comes with a 12 month warranty, you would be happy if it failed after 13 months?

Edit: I do agree however that Logitech are being reasonable here.