Newly purchased goods damaged due to negligent instruction manual. What can I do?

Fosterdog

So product A can be used with other components and not just product B, do other brands install correctly without needing to remove the standoff? Is the standoff a newish addition to product A or has it always had it present? Did you not even run a quick online search or check tech forums before buying that product A and product B were fully compatible? I would have thought there would be a lot of information online regarding this issue if they are commonly recommended together

nogaff

MattMattMattUK said:

I would suspect that this might be at best a grey area, but probably you will just have to chalk it up to experience. If you are building a computer (or upgrading parts), it is generally expected that you understand what you are doing and no one manufacturer can be held liable for damage to another component, even if made by the same manufacturer. Them not telling you remove the a standoff, even if they instructions originally omit this and have been subsequently amended, would not make them liable for damage to a third party component under any laws I am aware of, the goods were fit for purpose and unfortunately the damage was caused by yourself. You might, and I stress might, get a goodwill gesture if you purchased direct from the manufacturer, but I doubt it. 

Hmm, that's what I was afraid of.

However, I would counter that by questioning how I'm supposed to know the standoff is even removable if it is not stated in the original manual, and if the add-in component appears to be seated correctly without removing the standoff after following the provided instructions, how can that possibly be my fault?

If there had been any visible sign that the standoff was obstructing, bending, or otherwise harming the component I would have stopped what I was doing and taken steps to address the problem. However, as it is, the component has no visible damage whatsoever, and is merely non-functional, presumably due to some internal fracture.

nogaff

Fosterdog said:

So product A can be used with other components and not just product B, do other brands install correctly without needing to remove the standoff? Is the standoff a newish addition to product A or has it always had it present? Did you not even run a quick online search or check tech forums before buying that product A and product B were fully compatible? I would have thought there would be a lot of information online regarding this issue if they are commonly recommended together

Product B can be of various standard sizes. Depending on the selected size, the standoff may be required or not, but it came pre-installed in Product A and was not added after the fact; it was present out of the box.

The products are fully compatible and as per my other post before this one, I had absolutely no reason to believe the standoff needed to be removed for the size I had selected, since that was not stated anywhere in the supplied manual.

MattMattMattUK

nogaff said:

However, I would counter that by questioning how I'm supposed to know the standoff is even removable if it is not stated in the original manual, and if the add-in component appears to be seated correctly without removing the standoff after following the provided instructions, how can that possibly be my fault?

Fault is different to liability.

nogaff said:

If there had been any visible sign that the standoff was obstructing, bending, or otherwise harming the component I would have stopped what I was doing and taken steps to address the problem. However, as it is, the component has no visible damage whatsoever, and is merely non-functional, presumably due to some internal fracture.

Without knowing what the parts are it is hard to know, I am also surprised that the damage makes it non-functional yet is not visible, most components can take a bit more of a beating than people give them credit for. Are you sure it was functional in the first place? 

The products are fully compatible and as per my other post before this one, I had absolutely no reason to believe the standoff needed to be removed for the size I had selected, since that was not stated anywhere in the supplied manual.

It is one of those, if you know you know things. Personally I have never seen standoffs pre-fitted, they are either separate in the box and there to be fitted if needed, or you have to buy one if using one is unusual (eg: SLI GPUs with water cooling). One would usually expect the damage to occur when the standoff was not fitted, rather than when it was fitted though. 

nogaff said:

Product B can be of various standard sizes. Depending on the selected size, the standoff may be required or not, but it came pre-installed in Product A and was not added after the fact; it was present out of the box.

It is why PCIe cards are keyed, but some still are not, I have known people ram a PCIe x16 card in an x4 slot and damage a capacitor that sat beyond the x4 slot and force PCIe cards into PCI slots etc. 

Spank

nogaff said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I would suspect that this might be at best a grey area, but probably you will just have to chalk it up to experience. If you are building a computer (or upgrading parts), it is generally expected that you understand what you are doing and no one manufacturer can be held liable for damage to another component, even if made by the same manufacturer. Them not telling you remove the a standoff, even if they instructions originally omit this and have been subsequently amended, would not make them liable for damage to a third party component under any laws I am aware of, the goods were fit for purpose and unfortunately the damage was caused by yourself. You might, and I stress might, get a goodwill gesture if you purchased direct from the manufacturer, but I doubt it. 

Hmm, that's what I was afraid of.

However, I would counter that by questioning how I'm supposed to know the standoff is even removable if it is not stated in the original manual, and if the add-in component appears to be seated correctly without removing the standoff after following the provided instructions, how can that possibly be my fault?

If there had been any visible sign that the standoff was obstructing, bending, or otherwise harming the component I would have stopped what I was doing and taken steps to address the problem. However, as it is, the component has no visible damage whatsoever, and is merely non-functional, presumably due to some internal fracture.

If you don't tell what it is we can help you we can't say.
OK, 2nd guess. You have an AMD board and didn't take off the cooler bracket to fit an aftermarket cooler?

nogaff

MattMattMattUK said:

Without knowing what the parts are it is hard to know, I am also surprised that the damage makes it non-functional yet is not visible, most components can take a bit more of a beating than people give them credit for. Are you sure it was functional in the first place? 

To be honest, I have no idea if the component was functional in the first place. All I know is, it was not working the first time I booted the PC. I had considered simply RMA'ing the component as faulty, but there is a tiny, faint impression of the standoff on the label stuck to the underside of the component which, having now read the revised manual, leads me to believe damage was caused. If the retailer noticed that impression on the label, would it be grounds enough for them to reject an RMA?

Also, as a matter of principal, I don't really feel the retailer or the manufacturer of Product B should have to bear the cost of any replacement when it is the manufacturer of Product A who is at fault for not providing complete and adequate instructions from the outset. Clearly they are aware of the problem, having now published a new manual with additional steps to mitigate it.

Furthermore, given that the issue can cause significant and expensive damage to customers' equipment, should they not have sent out an addendum to be inserted into the packaging of old stock containing the old manual?

MattMattMattUK said:

Personally I have never seen standoffs pre-fitted, they are either separate in the box and there to be fitted if needed, or you have to buy one if using one is unusual (eg: SLI GPUs with water cooling).

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I have been building computers for 15 years and working in the IT industry for 13 of those years, and I have always found that optional parts are bagged up separately, to be installed if needed. Never once have I encountered a pre-installed standoff that actually needs to be removed in most circumstances. This is yet another reason why the thought that it could be removed never entered my mind, let alone the thought of actually removing it without an instruction to do so.

Spank

Clutching at straws here. Did you buy it from Scan? if so is there a change you bought the damage insurance?

nogaff

Spank said:

Clutching at straws here. Did you buy it from Scan? if so is there a change you bought the damage insurance?

No such luck, unfortunately.

Uptown_Boy

Is it a metal standoff on Product A? Did it compress the label to expose circuitry underneath, and this may have caused a short on Product B?

Have you tried removing the standoff, reassembling and trying again? (Sorry if you've already said - I haven't read every word of every post).

MattMattMattUK

nogaff said:

To be honest, I have no idea if the component was functional in the first place. All I know is, it was not working the first time I booted the PC. I had considered simply RMA'ing the component as faulty, but there is a tiny, faint impression of the standoff on the label stuck to the underside of the component which, having now read the revised manual, leads me to believe damage was caused. If the retailer noticed that impression on the label, would it be grounds enough for them to reject an RMA?

That would depend if it is a known issue for them or not. I was more querying that a minor bit of pressure could break a component so easily. I know components are delicate, but I a bit of pressure, but no visible damage does seem odd.

nogaff said:

Also, as a matter of principal, I don't really feel the retailer or the manufacturer of Product B should have to bear the cost of any replacement when it is the manufacturer of Product A who is at fault for not providing complete and adequate instructions from the outset. Clearly they are aware of the problem, having now published a new manual with additional steps to mitigate it.

I would guess that it has become a known issue, they have probably had some complaints, but that still does not make them liable, it comes down to user error. 

nogaff said:

Furthermore, given that the issue can cause significant and expensive damage to customers' equipment, should they not have sent out an addendum to be inserted into the packaging of old stock containing the old manual?

Not really, sometimes companies will, but they may assume people check online, or they may just not see it as their issue as they are not liable. They may have also cleared all their inventory but have no control of third party inventory and have no visibility of it once it has left their supply chain.

nogaff said:

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I have been building computers for 15 years and working in the IT industry for 13 of those years, and I have always found that optional parts are bagged up separately, to be installed if needed. Never once have I encountered a pre-installed standoff that actually needs to be removed in most circumstances. This is yet another reason why the thought that it could be removed never entered my mind, let alone the thought of actually removing it without an instruction to do so.

The main rule I have found when installing components is to be earthed for static (although I have never fried a component), the second is always presume the person who did work before you was an idiot (someone had once fitted the fans the wrong way around, so they all blew into the case, but none blow out), the third is never presume something will fit (M.2 with heat sinks seem to be the worst example of that, but RAM with heat sinks can be a close second). I would guess that if it is pre-installed then it almost always needs to be there and it is the exception rather than the rule that it is used, to be fair I am struggling to think of a situation where having a stand off in place could cause damage when fitting a component (rather than say taking up too much space so a side panel would not go back on as I have only ever seen them lift one component away from another, not push them towards another (although I only ever built desktops and upgraded servers, it may be different in an industrial enclosure).