No where in this story does it mention them going to their local consumer affairs offices to force umart to honour the warranty. I hope they did, I would hate to see them get off without legal repercussions.
“Naturally, he refused the offer and brought up Australian consumer law, which is quite similar to the European one for these matters. In a simplified form, retailers are responsible for warranty claims and must replace or refund the defective item; then they take the issue to the manufacturer. When confronted by Goran, Umart went to the trouble of quoting the Australian Consumer Law but made a seemingly byzantine and twisted interpretation of it, reiterating that a refund at the original price was the proper remedy.”
Now it totally sucks, but there isn’t the faintest blip of a bastardization or a twisting to the warranty policy refunding the amount he paid for the RAM. It says in plain text that they have to issue a refund or a replacement. It does not say the customer gets to choose whichever they want, and a refund most definitely doesn’t mean you get more back than what you paid for it.
Now what umart did next is definitely a shit move that they should be on the hook for. Keeping the ram and sending it off themselves without first checking with the customer. Umart should pay for that fuck up.
These are direct quotes from the ACCC website (my bolding added for emphasis):
When a product has a major problem, consumers can choose between a refund or replacement.
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product.
No where in this story does it mention them going to their local consumer affairs offices to force umart to honour the warranty. I hope they did, I would hate to see them get off without legal repercussions.
The article says this:
“Naturally, he refused the offer and brought up Australian consumer law, which is quite similar to the European one for these matters. In a simplified form, retailers are responsible for warranty claims and must replace or refund the defective item; then they take the issue to the manufacturer. When confronted by Goran, Umart went to the trouble of quoting the Australian Consumer Law but made a seemingly byzantine and twisted interpretation of it, reiterating that a refund at the original price was the proper remedy.”
Now it totally sucks, but there isn’t the faintest blip of a bastardization or a twisting to the warranty policy refunding the amount he paid for the RAM. It says in plain text that they have to issue a refund or a replacement. It does not say the customer gets to choose whichever they want, and a refund most definitely doesn’t mean you get more back than what you paid for it.
Now what umart did next is definitely a shit move that they should be on the hook for. Keeping the ram and sending it off themselves without first checking with the customer. Umart should pay for that fuck up.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel
These are direct quotes from the ACCC website (my bolding added for emphasis):
When a product has a major problem, consumers can choose between a refund or replacement.
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product.
deleted by creator
Yeah I’d have been involving the ACCC from a very early stage.
Another lesson here is to pull out the camera and get some evidence before you give the part back too.
This shits me because I’ve always viewed Umart as a good place to get stuff from. I’m really annoyed with them over this.