As a seller of what the law calls "goods", B&H "warrants" - that is a legal term for "promises" - that the item is what it purports to be and that it will work for its intended purpose. So, when you buy something that does not work as it i s represented, the law is long settled that a seller violates its common law dut y; that it owes to all purchasers on goods as to the fitness for their intended purpose. This duty of fitness can only be waived if goods are sold on an "as is basis", and if you expressly agree to such waiver either by your words or your conduct.
Please distinguish between "B&H's" return policy for "goods" that function prope rly at the time of your purchase, and "goods" that never worked properly. In th is regard, as to properly working "goods", B&H can refuse to accept gooods with missing CPU codes. However, your case of a defective product whold not apply to any claim that a missing CPU sticker preempts B&H accepting your return of its defective product.
For your reference, the New York - City and State - consumer fraud departments w ill "wring" B&H's neck if they sold you - either knowlingly or unknowlingly - a defective product and if they refuse to either refund your purchase price or giv e you the same item in a new working condition.
You have a valid claim, do not allow yourself to be intimitated by the B&H retur n department.
Hold on just a minute. If the purchaser damages the product independently while in his possession, I would argue no refund is due. The purchaser still has the manufacturer's warranty to fall back on, but he has violated the terms of B&H's return policy when he mutilated the box and tried to swindle the manufacturer out of a rebate. I don't think it's any leap to tie his submission of the rebate request with his being deemed to have accepted the product. I hope B&H will stand their ground. Crooks like this don't need to be rewarded. I think you're putting the "white hat" on the wrong party. The law protects sellers too, you know.
I purchased goods at B&H (enscaps for a 90mm Schneider SuperAngulon, and a 15" TeleOptar) and the WRONG SIZE caps FRONT&REAR were sent to me TWICE. I called B&H Returns Department got an RMA and had no problems whatsoever returning the lenscaps for a full refund including SHIPPING BOTH WAYS, 2-TIMES!! In the end I just purchased LENSWRAPS at a local MART, and saved myself a 3rd RETURN.
Maybe it is the way you have to coax the refund out of them, but if you are NICE to them, they are usually NICE BACK.
The issue presented is: If a product is defective at the time of its sale must aretailer replace it or its purchase price? Certainly, the customer may not retain the manufacturer's rebate if a refund of the sale price is made by the retailer.
Seperately, no retailer with any "smarts" would argue with a customer as to the legitimacy of a request to exchange a purportedly defective product. Please do not confuse a defective product at the time of sale with a product that fails to function after it has been put to use.
As to my being Honorable, that is how most people address me during the day.
Mr. Triffin is ruled "out of order" for starting a new thread, instead of adding on to the original one (so that the rest of us will have some idea of what he is talking about). This violation of common Internet etiquette preempts Mr. Triffin?s dubious claim that he actually knows actual about commercial law. Case dismissed.
I do believe we are speaking about UCC 2-513 Buyer's right to inspection of goods, and 2-601 Buyer's rights on improper delivery, and 2-313, 2-314, 2-315, and 2-316, all of which deal with various forms of warranty and exclusions and modifications thereof. Maybe those numbers are different in other states, but if I recall the UCC has been adopted by 49 states and is quite universal.
So, for all of you having problems with B & H, go on the internet, find New York statutory law, go to the section dealing with sales in the Uniform Commercial Code, and see what it has to say.
It is common practice in consumer retail purchases that defective goods may be returned to the retailer for replacement (usually within 10-30 days of original purchase) if the original packaging (including UPC proof of purchase) and sales receipt are presented to the retailer (along with the defective goods). The requirement that the UPC proof of purchase be returned is to protect the manufacturer of fraudulent activity with regard to rebates, and fraudulent warranty claims on identical goods that are out of warranty. The manufacturer will not reimburse the retailer for the defective goods unless these items are collected from the customer.
The above ?rules? established by the retailer and manufacturer, which still allows the customer to get the item repaired by the manufacturer?s warranty even if the UPC code is missing, seems reasonable to me, and I believe is accepted by common law in most locations. I do not believe that this particular situation is covered by the UCC, especially since the return policy of most retailers is adequately disclosed.
Sounds to me like someone has an axe to grind. I don't think the post belongs here anyway. (Oh, and learn HTML, so someone else doesn't have to type slash ewe for you next time.)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks