Returning a product "Not as described"

TELLIT01

As others have been said 'Up to' really is almost meaningless.  Plenty of shampoos advertise 'Up to 100%...' but they qualify that claim by adding when viewing from a specified distance.  No product can be more than 100% effective.  If manufacturers had any confidence in their claims they would state the minimum expected.  Don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Bungles976

I know the "Up to" reference is a very vague term. But surely they have some responsibility to be semi accurate. Otherwise they could advertise the battery lasts up to 100 hours, but then if it actually doesn't and only lasts 1 hour it still in the bracket....

Also for comparison, my now 2 and half year old Samsung watch was advertised as "up to 3 days battery life - typical usage..."
When it was brand new I would get 2.5-3 days battery life depending on how I used it.

I think my other issue is expectation v reality.
I wouldnt mind if say I was getting 30-35 hours and had half the features turned on. I wouldn't expect to get 40 hours every single charge.

But I also wouldn't expect to have to turn off 80% of the features of the watch to then only get half the potential battery life.

ThumbRemote

Did you pay by credit card? If so, contact the card issuer, provide the correspondence from Samsung saying you are able to return it, and try dealing with the card issuer not the retailer. 

Manxman_in_exile

TELLIT01 said:

...  If manufacturers had any confidence in their claims they would state the minimum expected.  Don't expect that to happen any time soon.

That's the view I take as well and it's the reason why I ignore advertising claims such as "up to ... "

Bungles976 said:

I know the "Up to" reference is a very vague term. But surely they have some responsibility to be semi accurate. Otherwise they could advertise the battery lasts up to 100 hours, but then if it actually doesn't and only lasts 1 hour it still in the bracket....

But see above.

They are not being less than "semi-accurate".  They are being 100% accurate if the actual value falls within the bracket "up to 40 hours".  You may not like it, but even 5 minutes falls within that bracket.

Always ignore any claims that simply say something like  "... up to 40 hours... "

But if the claim says "... between 20 hours and 40 hours... " then you would have an arguable claim if it lasted for less than 20 hours, but not if it lasted 21 hours.

user1977

Bungles976 said:

Sandtree said:
I assume you bought it direct from Samsung seeing as thats who you've been engaging with? If they are the manufacturer but you bought it from say Amazon then the below is irrelevant and you havent stopped the clock.

Bought from a Samsung Store, was originally talking direct with Samsung Customer Services. But then moved on to Partner Retail Services Limited who are the third party that operate the stores 

In which case you ought to be dealing purely with Partner Retail Services Ltd, as they're the retailer.

anotheruser

TELLIT01 said:

As others have been said 'Up to' really is almost meaningless.  Plenty of shampoos advertise 'Up to 100%...' but they qualify that claim by adding when viewing from a specified distance.  No product can be more than 100% effective.  If manufacturers had any confidence in their claims they would state the minimum expected.  Don't expect that to happen any time soon.

And yet broadband companies have been forced to stop using "up to" for the same reason - most people not getting that.
Wonder how that example could be applied to other industries and whether there is a reasonable expectation for this to be in effect.

Money_Grabber13579

My opinion on it would be that if they are advertising it as up to 40 hours, then it must be capable of achieving 40 hours under some circumstances. If it’s not, then that claim is misleading and shouldn’t be included in any marketing.

Now, I’m sure that Samsung have managed to achieve 40 hours out of it but no doubt that is with every possible feature turned off.  However, that wouldn’t seem like typical usage to me and so, the key points to determine are: what is typical usage, and what circumstances did Samsung achieve 40 hours battery life. I suspect that only a court might be able to determine the answer to that if Samsung aren’t willing to budge.

robatwork

I can't agree with the people arguing that 5 minutes or 10 hours falls within the reasonable definition of "Up to 40 hours". I realise that technically it does. If it was accepted that "up to" meant its literal meaning it could be legitimately advertised as "Up to 4000 hours battery life". 

Doubtless Samsung could produce research to show 40 hours life but the key phrase here is "typical", and if you can demonstrate you used it typically (or under) then I think you have a strong case. The legal case before a judge would be if your usage was typical and if 20 hours was reasonable. Letter before action then small claim.

cx6

it is technically correct that a laptop with a 10 minute battery life can be described as 'up.to an infinite number of hours'

arthurfowler

Anyway OP, it seems the manufacturer (Samsung) agree with you that it is not right and have sent you multiple emails saying they should refund. If you have written confirmation from the manufacturer, then the issue here seems to be a poor poor retailer. 

I don't know what tests they did, but unless they used it for the 20 hours with your scenario, I don't see how their battery tests could prove you wrong.