I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
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.
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
Specifically what part of Section D concerns you?