PSU failure, under warranty but only offered less than 50% refund, help

Nessun_Dorma

unholyangel wrote: »

And yet apparently, the only person refusing to honour the terms of the warranty was the OP.

What are the terms of the warranty?

Nessun_Dorma

Zandoni wrote: »

I find it amazing that you and others feel it's acceptable that the OP would have to pay so much and wait so long for the repair of a PSU.


The way companies put a massive banner saying 5 Year Guarantee and then put in ridiculous terms into their T&C's. I know it's legal but people should still try to give the sellers a hard time about it, not just accept it.


You all need to grow some.........

Not necessarily.

Nessun_Dorma

daytona0 wrote: »

I've brought this point up twice now, but it seems to go over your head so I'll try and explain it as simply as possible.

A 5 year guarantee is going above and beyond the standard SOGA obligations. On post 8 you said:



So, if ebuyer have a 5 year guarantee then it is "giving better customer service than SOGA". So I don't understand what your beef is... This whole issue looks like a SOGA resolution, and if it isn't then it has gone above and beyond their legal obligation! So you're either wrong about arguing about the type of resolution with me (on post 12) or you're wrong about ebuyer not going above and beyond (on post 8).


UNLESS you dispute the terms of the guarantee, in which I ponder why one would accept such "ridiculous" terms to the guarantee. No doubt the terms were not read!


I'm not seeing anything too bad with all of this. The phrase "5 year guarantee" is virtually meaningless without knowing what you are promised, and the terms of this. It seems that the warranty can be invoked with the manufacturer, which is a slight inconvenience [not being able to go to the retailer] but fairly standard. Also, ebuyer have offered a partial refund which AT LEAST runs in line with SOGA (and OP's legal rights as an absolute minimum). Sometimes you just have to accept that GETTING SOMETHING BACK WITH EASE and which takes into account normal use (unless you believe that companies should give you free rentals of their items!) are both elements of good customer service. Each to their own in that respect, I guess.

So, let's boil this down to simple points:

• Consumer sees a product advertised.
  
• Advert promises a five year warranty.
  
• Consumer buys product from seller and pays the seller to create the contract.
  
• Five year warranty forms part of the consideration for the contract.
  
• Product becomes faulty.
  
• Consumer returns to the party with whom he has a contract.
  
• Consumer requests seller fulfils their side of the original contract, by honouring the five year guarantee.

What have I missed?

Nessun_Dorma

robatwork wrote: »

Zandoni sometimes you just need to hold your hands up. There is no ambivalence about who is offering the 5 year warranty, it's the manufacturer not Ebuyer.

EBuyer are many things, but being John Lewis isn't one of them.

As to XFX - I wouldn't trust their PSUs if they are made with the same level of attention to detail as their illiterate website:

XFX offers a top of it's class 5 Year Warranty on all PSUs.

Our back to back limited warranty covers your PSU purchase for up to 5 Years ensuring that you'll have the support and service you need if you should ever have problems with your PSU both mechanically and technically. It is one of the longest warrenties in the industry and back by XFX's best in class service quality.

The consumer, in this case, does not have a contract with the manufacturer, he has the contract with the seller.

daytona0

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

So, let's boil this down to simple points:

• Consumer sees a product advertised.
  
• Advert promises a five year warranty.
  
• Consumer buys product from seller and pays the seller to create the contract.
  
• Five year warranty forms part of the consideration for the contract.
  
• Product becomes faulty.
  
• Consumer returns to the party with whom he has a contract.
  
• Consumer requests seller fulfils their side of the original contract, by honouring the five year guarantee.

What have I missed?

You have missed two things:

1. Who is legally responsible for the warranty (because by default the seller is under SOGA, and the manufacturer is under warranty. Unless, of course, ebuyer are the manufacturer too)?

2. My post was mainly criticising Zandoni's alleged incongruence up to now, not strictly arguing about who holds the warranty! It is more about how Zandoni says that he doesn't use ebuyer because they don't go beyond SOGA, yet they believe (like you) that this is/should be a warranty claim with the retailer. That IS going above and beyond SOGA. You two may be right, but to me this looks like SOGA especially when ebuyer referred OP to manufacturer.

It goes over Zandoni's head which is quite funny (and possibly intentional).

Zandoni

daytona0 wrote: »

You have missed two things:

1. Who is legally responsible for the warranty (because by default the seller is under SOGA, and the manufacturer is under warranty. Unless, of course, ebuyer are the manufacturer too)?

2. My post was mainly criticising Zandoni's alleged incongruence up to now, not strictly arguing about who holds the warranty! It is more about how Zandoni says that he doesn't use ebuyer because they don't go beyond SOGA, yet they believe (like you) that this is/should be a warranty claim with the retailer. That IS going above and beyond SOGA. You two may be right, but to me this looks like SOGA especially when ebuyer referred OP to manufacturer.

It goes over Zandoni's head which is quite funny (and possibly intentional).

Although it's going over your head I have stopped buying from Ebuyer in protest of not honouring their one year guarantee. If an item goes wrong between 6 and 12 months old they do not replace or repair they give a proportional refund. I and many of my IT colleagues do not feel this is a fair way of doing business so we buy from other sources.

If you are happy with this practice then by all means use them, but in doing so you will encourage more suppliers to do the same.

unholyangel

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

What are the terms of the warranty?

The consumer needs to pay shipping costs. OP wasn't willing to do this and nor were they happy with how long a warranty repair/replacement could take (2 months if i remember right).

OP cannot be claiming under warranty as they are unwilling to abide by the terms of that warranty.

daytona0

Zandoni wrote: »

Although it's going over your head I have stopped buying from Ebuyer in protest of not honouring their one year guarantee. If an item goes wrong between 6 and 12 months old they do not replace or repair they give a proportional refund. I and many of my IT colleagues do not feel this is a fair way of doing business so we buy from other sources.

If you are happy with this practice then by all means use them, but in doing so you will encourage more suppliers to do the same.

That is an absolutely legitimate reason for not buying from ebuyer, if they don't honour a 1 year guarantee. I have absolutely no beef with your opinion here.

My point is that your earlier posts indicated that you believed that ebuyer was bad because they didn't go beyond SOGA, and a warranty (in relation to the retailer) is clearly beyond SOGA. You then went on to criticise my post by saying "The OP was claiming under the warranty noT SOGA.", which is obviously a bit strange when you allegedly believe that they do not go beyond SOGA. So either I am right in it being a SOGA claim, or you are wrong in saying that ebuyer don't go beyond SOGA.

(before you ask me to prove any of this, please read my previous few posts because I haven't diverged from this point).

Zandoni

daytona0 wrote: »

That is an absolutely legitimate reason for not buying from ebuyer, if they don't honour a 1 year guarantee. I have absolutely no beef with your opinion here.

My point is that your earlier posts indicated that you believed that ebuyer was bad because they didn't go beyond SOGA, and a warranty (in relation to the retailer) is clearly beyond SOGA. You then went on to criticise my post by saying "The OP was claiming under the warranty noT SOGA.", which is obviously a bit strange when you allegedly believe that they do not go beyond SOGA. So either I am right in it being a SOGA claim, or you are wrong in saying that ebuyer don't go beyond SOGA.

(before you ask me to prove any of this, please read my previous few posts because I haven't diverged from this point).

I'm glad we cleared that up, still not sure what you are talking about in the second paragraph though.

shaun_from_Africa

daytona0 wrote: »

My point is that your earlier posts indicated that you believed that ebuyer was bad because they didn't go beyond SOGA,

A retailer not going beyond their SOGA obligations doesn't make them bad but it does make them not as good as other retailers who might have different policies.


Take Currys for example.
If you buy something from one of their high St shops and once you've opened it, decide that it's not suitable, you can't return it.
John Lewis on the other hand are more than happy for you to return opened goods within 90 days from purchase.


Both stores are abiding by their SOGA obligations but one of them is going well beyond what is legally required so which store is giving better customer service?