“{…}during the limited warranty period, and subject to the conditions and exceptions stated in this Agreement, Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.” [emphasis added]
Please review section D of their warranty terms and conditions. It clearly states they are not liable for more money than the original purchase price:
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.
So yes, they will totally cover the cost of a replacement or refund of market value at the time of requesting the refund, but they are only liable for that purchase price. If the value goes above what you paid, they are not liable for providing the increased price. This is the having cake and eating it too. It’s worded to protect them the fullest, or if they decline to replace it later and it’s much cheaper for them to provide you with a market value refund, they will do so.
That is not a sentence, you took a sentence fragment. Very important distinction in a legal document.
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.
They are saying they are not liable for any implied warranties. The only warranty that is valid is the one defined in the document. They are not saying that section D does not apply to express warranties, as the next sentence talks about them in terms of limiting duration.
Stop trying to act like you know the answer. It could go either way, it’s up to the judge and judges can have different interpretations, even at the supreme court level decisions are usually not unanimous.
Fuck you gotta insult the guys reading ability, you both read perfectly fine and neither of you are lawyers so you have no authority even if you read English perfectly well.
What’s funny is this wording was likely designed to try and screw over the customer and backfired, because historically a used SSD has always been cheaper than the original purchase price. But in this specific market, it works in the consumer’s favor.
Exactly that because drives were getting cheaper over time so it saved Samsung money to refund at the going market rate and at worst case it would be just a few dollars more. When they penned that they never envisaged the shitshow we have going on today when the price of storage and RAM has 4x’d or more.
Please review section D of their warranty terms and conditions. It clearly states they are not liable for more money than the original purchase price:
So yes, they will totally cover the cost of a replacement or refund of market value at the time of requesting the refund, but they are only liable for that purchase price. If the value goes above what you paid, they are not liable for providing the increased price. This is the having cake and eating it too. It’s worded to protect them the fullest, or if they decline to replace it later and it’s much cheaper for them to provide you with a market value refund, they will do so.
The problem with that is the first sentence:
It states pretty clearly to me they are liable for the current market price if they are unable to repair or replace.
That is not a sentence, you took a sentence fragment. Very important distinction in a legal document.
They are saying they are not liable for any implied warranties. The only warranty that is valid is the one defined in the document. They are not saying that section D does not apply to express warranties, as the next sentence talks about them in terms of limiting duration.
Reading is fundamental man.
Stop trying to act like you know the answer. It could go either way, it’s up to the judge and judges can have different interpretations, even at the supreme court level decisions are usually not unanimous.
Fuck you gotta insult the guys reading ability, you both read perfectly fine and neither of you are lawyers so you have no authority even if you read English perfectly well.
thanks man we know
thanks
see what I did there?
What’s funny is this wording was likely designed to try and screw over the customer and backfired, because historically a used SSD has always been cheaper than the original purchase price. But in this specific market, it works in the consumer’s favor.
Exactly that because drives were getting cheaper over time so it saved Samsung money to refund at the going market rate and at worst case it would be just a few dollars more. When they penned that they never envisaged the shitshow we have going on today when the price of storage and RAM has 4x’d or more.
Which is, of course, why they suddenly feel entitled to not follow their own rules.
Happy cake day!
I guess the question is what the price was when he submitted the claim.
Edit: Today’s price isn’t necessarily the price when the claim was filed.
$949
Now here’s a guy who at least bothered to read the title.
The what? I like toast
There’s a time difference between today and when the claim was filed.
He sent it off, they sent it back, and he tested it before they offered the purchase price as a refund.
I know this because I bothered to read the article
It was a video. And covered in said video.
No, that’s the price when the refund was offered. The warranty states it’s the price when the claim was filed.
As stated in the video, this was not done long ago. This is why he has to wait 60 days.