Technology

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 116 points 8 months ago

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

parent

[+] Deceptichum 75 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 15 points 8 months ago

Yeah I’d have been involving the ACCC from a very early stage.

Another lesson here is to pull out the camera and get some evidence before you give the part back too.

This shits me because I’ve always viewed Umart as a good place to get stuff from. I’m really annoyed with them over this.

parent

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

The article says this:

"Naturally, he refused the offer and brought up Australian consumer law, which is quite similar to the European one for these matters. In a simplified form, retailers are responsible for warranty claims and must replace or refund the defective item; then they take the issue to the manufacturer. When confronted by Goran, Umart went to the trouble of quoting the Australian Consumer Law but made a seemingly byzantine and twisted interpretation of it, reiterating that a refund at the original price was the proper remedy."

Now it totally sucks, but there isn't the faintest blip of a bastardization or a twisting to the warranty policy refunding the amount he paid for the RAM. It says in plain text that they have to issue a refund or a replacement. It does not say the customer gets to choose whichever they want, and a refund most definitely doesn't mean you get more back than what you paid for it.

Now what umart did next is definitely a shit move that they should be on the hook for. Keeping the ram and sending it off themselves without first checking with the customer. Umart should pay for that fuck up.

parent

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 30 points 8 months ago

These are direct quotes from the ACCC website (my bolding added for emphasis):

When a product has a major problem, consumers can choose between a refund or replacement.
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product.

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago (2 children)

you owe them 4x the cost it's your problem.

they owe you 4x the cost it's your problem.

so, all you have to do is make it their problem. go in, every day and waste their time on getting a replacement. act like the previous day didn't even happen. demand to speak to the regional manager.

go full Karen.

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 10 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Bring enough Karens to DDoS them.

parent

[–] Sculptor9157@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Daily Destruction of Sanity.

parent

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 50 points 8 months ago (1 child)

There's consumer protection laws against this kind of abuse.

[–] TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone 51 points 8 months ago

Australian consumer law specifically protects against this. The consumer has a choice between a repair (if possible), a refund or a replacement; the retailer doesn't get to choose for them. At today's prices, replacement is the only sensible choice. The retailer has to take it up with the manufacturer to cover their costs.

parent

[–] Matty_r@programming.dev 49 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Immediately knew this was going to be Umart - they're a bunch of cunts that treat their customers like trash.

The Australian Consumer Law states that the customer may choose a refund or replacement. This guy can raise it with ACCC and they'll take then to court.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Best part is, they don't even have to go to court, this sort of thing can be taken to your state or territory's administrative tribunal, which costs peanuts to file with, and it's extremely common to represent yourself. Hence why it's an extremely effective threat when you're obviously in the right, like in this case.

Basically Umart is fucked and Australian Consumer Law is really not shabby :)

parent

[–] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 37 points 8 months ago

then sue them.. chances are you'll win, get the ram and they will be out even more money as a result.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

the price increase would equate to an 'upgrade' for the customer

Well, who even asked? Is there such a exemption in the law?

And no, it's not; the hardware doesn't get better.

[–] kablez@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Ooof, that is a solid heads up, thank you!

I have bought some things from UMart out of convenience but always prefer to support my local independent PC stores. I guess this just reeenforces why the latter is so important!

[–] jmill@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

Umart sounds like Best Buy in the US. Fuck Best Buy.

parent

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 13 points 8 months ago

I thought it was 'supply and demand' not 'price gouging and demand'

[–] Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

Don't worry, if the price went down I'm sure they would be sueing to force themselves to replace the memory AND give you cash back. /s

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 22 points 8 months ago

Which ends any further dealings I have with Umart. I’ve bought a couple of boxes and sone parts through them, no longer. Thank you for this.

[–] drathir@mastodon.social 11 points 8 months ago

@Wilshire hopefully store loose certification from producer side... also some penalty and full refund forced by country sales regulators as reminder that greed from already increased prices of much cheaper product is not worthy and warranty for sold products should be fullfilled...

[–] j7126@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

How did I know it would be Umart as soon as I saw the title.

Fuck Umart. I have been screwed by them multiple times on warranty.

It's a shame that they are the only company that actually seems to have stores in a lot of places.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

TBF, the law as stated says a refund is acceptable. It does not say if the refund is at original purchase price or current price. It should be whichever price is higher, else the consumer could be at a loss depending on the circumstances.

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Matty_r@programming.dev 41 points 8 months ago

The customer can choose a refund or replacement - its not up to the retailer. A refund would be of the original purchase price, so a replacement is a no brainer.

parent

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

The refund would be based on the purchase receipt, no other way to calculate that. Anything else would involve a convoluted process with lawyers. So yeah, replacement is the only meaningful option.

parent

5 comments in c/australia view that post

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't know anything about Australian laws, but I would assume that would be an easy lawsuit to win, no?

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

No, the law says that you should get a replacement or a refund. They offered the refund at the original price, not at current market price. It's a shitty situation, but not illegal.

parent

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 10 points 8 months ago*

If it's classed as a "major" fault that essentially renders it unusable, the customer gets to choose the remedy, not the retailer.

This is usually so the customer can get their money back for a shit product, but there's nothing stopping them from a replacement.

Umart's claim that it's "an upgrade" doesn't hold much weight. If you buy X gigabytes of ram and it fails and you want a replacement with the same X gigabytes of ram, that's not an upgrade. It's restoring the status quo of the original purchase where they got a physical quantity of a product.