Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
edit: their warranty terms include a line that states:
IN NO EVENT WILL SAMSUNG’S LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE PRODUCT.
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES STATED HEREIN, SAMSUNG DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER
EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
NONINFRINGEMENT, COURSE OF DEALING AND USAGE OF TRADE. ALL EXPRESSED AND
IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO THE LIMITED WARRANTY PERIOD.
THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS SAMSUNG’S ENTIRE LIABILITY AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL SAMSUNG, ITS SUPPLIERS OR ANY
AFFILIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR SPECIAL
DAMAGES, ANY FINANCIAL LOSS OR ANY LOST DATA OR FILES, EVEN IF SAMSUNG HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY. IN NO EVENT WILL SAMSUNG’S
LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE PRODUCT. THESE LIMITATIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
edit: their warranty terms include a line that states:
I need you to realize that you’re 100% wrong. Their warranty states that the refund will be the market price at the time the warranty case is opened.
You don’t even need a lawyer to win this one.
I need you to realize that you’re 100% wrong. Their warranty states that their liability will never exceed the purchase price of the product.
https://download.semiconductor.samsung.com/resources/warranty/Samsung_SSD_Limited_Warranty_English_US_10140201029126.pdf