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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.
then sue them… chances are you’ll win, get the ram and they will be out even more money as a result.
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 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.
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.
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.
I thought it was ‘supply and demand’ not ‘price gouging and demand’
