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.
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?