223
PC User Says G.Skill Made Him A “Customer For Life” After Replacing A $150 Kit Now Worth $1,199 (wccftech.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Can also confirm that Patriot Memory will also honor DD4 lifetime warranty albeit their communication does leave a lot to be desired.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Few commenters so far seem to have read the article.

It's not notable that they're complying with their warranty terms, but that they shipped him a replacement kit when providing a refund of the original purchase price can also fulfill the terms of the warranty (EDIT) in some situations that other manufacturers, like Crucial, have intentionally created to limit their liability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    However, we have heard a lot of RMA horror stories this year as RAM and SSD prices skyrocketed. Many vendors have started providing refunds instead of replacements, citing limited or no inventory, as their intent appears to be to sell the product for a much higher margin.

    We have seen how companies like Crucial and Samsung have straight-up refused to honor the warranty claim despite agreeing to the replacement initially, offering only a refund, which is only a fraction of the current cost of the product

    I don't see how that claims that refund also fulfills the terms of the warranty. In fact, looking at the G.SKILL RMA policy there is never a mention of a refund option, only a return and replacement.

    If the claim is that these companies are able to bend or hide the terms of their RMA policies then this is an issue with the legal system itself for allowing this. In fact, I would wager that a fight in small claims court would see the customer win any dispute.

    Are you reading something I'm not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I was actually slightly wrong in my original comment. I'll fix it.

    It's not the terms and conditions, but US law (I'm assuming he's from the US).

    15 U.S.C. Chapter 50 §2301(10) defines a warranty "remedy" as...

    ...whichever of the following actions the warrantor elects: repair, replacement, or refund; except that the warrantor may not elect refund unless (i) the warrantor is unable to provide replacement and repair is not commercially practicable or cannot be timely made, or (ii) the consumer is willing to accept such refund.

    It goes on to define a refund as...

    ...refunding the actual purchase price (less reasonable depreciation based on actual use where permitted by rules of the Commission).

    As I recall, these other companies were either offering but not mandating a refund, which is legal, or claiming they didn't have equivalent products in stock, which allows them to unilaterally opt for a refund of the original purchase price instead.

    This is a perfectly acceptable policy in a sane world, but it's 2026. Party to the bottom! Wooo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Ah. I should have known that gratitude over basic consumer protection is an American-centric problem, especially when laws are an escape hatch for corporate greed.

    When in doubt, the root of the problem always seems to be: "America".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent