Don’t worry, if the price went down I’m sure they would be sueing to force themselves to replace the memory AND give you cash back. /s
How did I know it would be Umart as soon as I saw the title.
Fuck Umart. I have been screwed by them multiple times on warranty.
It’s a shame that they are the only company that actually seems to have stores in a lot of places.
“Business owners deserve the profits they make because they’re the ones taking on risk.”
“No, no, not like that!”
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
you owe them 4x the cost it’s your problem.
they owe you 4x the cost it’s your problem.
so, all you have to do is make it their problem. go in, every day and waste their time on getting a replacement. act like the previous day didn’t even happen. demand to speak to the regional manager.
go full Karen.
Bring enough Karens to DDoS them.
Daily Destruction of Sanity.
There’s consumer protection laws against this kind of abuse.
Australian consumer law specifically protects against this. The consumer has a choice between a repair (if possible), a refund or a replacement; the retailer doesn’t get to choose for them. At today’s prices, replacement is the only sensible choice. The retailer has to take it up with the manufacturer to cover their costs.
the price increase would equate to an ‘upgrade’ for the customer
Well, who even asked? Is there such a exemption in the law?
And no, it’s not; the hardware doesn’t get better.
It needs to be as easy to go after companies doing this shit as it is to collect dept from individuals (at least how it works here). No courts, just a government office where you can make your claim and the company needs to put effort in to dispute that. Anything else and they can just drag their feet.
That’s what arbitration is and the companies rigged it.
What OP explained isn’t arbitration. When you don’t pay off your bills, they go through a shortened court process in which you haven’t got any representation.
The claimant merely submits their records of the claimee owing them. Then the case is either upheld and the claimee gets 10 days to fight the case or pay before their accounts get impounded, or the case gets thrown out.
The claimee doesn’t have any say in the entire process - they can only raise issues after they get the stern letter to pay.
Since there’s no representation for one side, it’s not arbitration.
Exactly. Companies shouldn’t get better treatment when they behave worse.
Edit: Totally would be ok with longer timelines though, as companies can be slower for understandable reasons.
Why lax the timelines? Companies have an army of employees. They can deal with the consequences, unlike individuals.
Someone comes home dead from work. Someone’s close family passed away. Someone went to vacation and didn’t get the (snail) mail in time.
A lot of things make the 10-ish day window of “raise issue now” impossible to honour.
However, not for companies.
If people are overworked - hire more.
If someone’s family member died - there’s everyone else in the section to take care of stuff until they return.
If the only person responsible for dealing with this stuff is out on vacation, it’s a managerial issue. One that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
While the reasons companies raise sound PR-friendly, they’re really not justifications - only mere excuses.
A company is a system, and if it fails a 10-day deadline of dealing with their financial obligations (after months of failing to provide a core customer service on top), it’s a failing system. The only one whose fault it is is the company itself and its (clearly sub-par) management.
Individuals can have the excuse of “life happened”. Companies cannot, as they’re not living beings. Especially since sooner or later, everyone is replaceable in their eyes, and because most can always hire more people without a single meaningful change in any KPI.
About the deadlines: yes, they should be extended. Claimants usually don’t care much abd start the process after months of backlogged claims anyway. Even for a single claimee it’s beneficial - a slower buth more robust system has higher odds of honouring a request.
However, companies have absolutely no ground to request an extension because they’re big. If anything, it should be shortened.
I mean, fair enough. I do not really care either way, i just want to make stalling out the individual person impossible.
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.
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.
Immediately knew this was going to be Umart - they’re a bunch of cunts that treat their customers like trash.
The Australian Consumer Law states that the customer may choose a refund or replacement. This guy can raise it with ACCC and they’ll take then to court.
Best part is, they don’t even have to go to court, this sort of thing can be taken to your state or territory’s administrative tribunal, which costs peanuts to file with, and it’s extremely common to represent yourself. Hence why it’s an extremely effective threat when you’re obviously in the right, like in this case.
Basically Umart is fucked and Australian Consumer Law is really not shabby :)
then sue them… chances are you’ll win, get the ram and they will be out even more money as a result.
Ooof, that is a solid heads up, thank you!
I have bought some things from UMart out of convenience but always prefer to support my local independent PC stores. I guess this just reeenforces why the latter is so important!
Umart sounds like Best Buy in the US. Fuck Best Buy.
Which ends any further dealings I have with Umart. I’ve bought a couple of boxes and sone parts through them, no longer. Thank you for this.
TBF, the law as stated says a refund is acceptable. It does not say if the refund is at original purchase price or current price. It should be whichever price is higher, else the consumer could be at a loss depending on the circumstances.
The customer can choose a refund or replacement - its not up to the retailer. A refund would be of the original purchase price, so a replacement is a no brainer.
The refund would be based on the purchase receipt, no other way to calculate that. Anything else would involve a convoluted process with lawyers. So yeah, replacement is the only meaningful option.
I thought it was ‘supply and demand’ not ‘price gouging and demand’
