Re: Shame on B&H

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Frankhartx, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. Frankhartx

    Frankhartx Guest

    >From: "Mark M"

    >), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    >> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund simply
    >> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.


    >In the future, you'll know better, and
    >others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    >require submission of the warran


    Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    defective merchandise. This has nothing to do with the warrantly or any policy
    of the manufacturer or the dealer. Any rule or practice that is contrary to
    public policy--that being the law- is null and void. B&H as the vendor is
    responsible for following the law and replacing or refunding the purchase
    price--no if's ands or buts.
    Frankhartx, Aug 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frankhartx

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Frankhartx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Mark M"

    >
    > >), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    > >> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund

    simply
    > >> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.

    >
    > >In the future, you'll know better, and
    > >others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    > >require submission of the warran

    >
    > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise.


    Assuming you're talking about the US, not exactly. Many states imply into
    all sales a warranty of merchantability and a warranty of fitness for a
    particular purpose. Depending upon the state, both warranties may, however,
    be disclaimed through the simply expedient of setting out the refund policy
    in advance of the sale.

    > This has nothing to do with the warrantly or any policy
    > of the manufacturer or the dealer. Any rule or practice that is contrary

    to
    > public policy--that being the law- is null and void.


    This legalese-sounding gibberish is, I'm afraid, just that -- gibberish, and
    not the case at all.

    > B&H as the vendor is
    > responsible for following the law and replacing or refunding the purchase
    > price--no if's ands or buts.


    B&H must follow the law. Your interpretation of what is the law is not
    correct.
    PTRAVEL, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frankhartx

    Andrew Guest

    Frankhartx <> wrote:
    >>From: "Mark M"


    >>), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    >>> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund simply
    >>> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.


    >>In the future, you'll know better, and
    >>others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    >>require submission of the warran


    > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise.


    What law?

    > This has nothing to do with the warrantly or any policy
    > of the manufacturer or the dealer. Any rule or practice that is contrary to
    > public policy--that being the law- is null and void. B&H as the vendor is
    > responsible for following the law and replacing or refunding the purchase
    > price--no if's ands or buts.


    Again, what law?

    Andrew
    Andrew, Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Frankhartx

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Frankhartx wrote:

    >>From: "Mark M"

    >
    >>), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    >>> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund simply
    >>> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.

    >
    >>In the future, you'll know better, and
    >>others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    >>require submission of the warran

    >
    > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise. This has nothing to do with the warrantly or any
    > policy of the manufacturer or the dealer. Any rule or practice that is
    > contrary to public policy--that being the law- is null and void. B&H as the
    > vendor is responsible for following the law and replacing or refunding the
    > purchase price--no if's ands or buts.


    So you're saying that despite a manufacturer's warranty, the vendor is 100%
    responsible for the camera for the whole warranty period ? And say, after 10
    months, if a product fails, anyone can just take it back for a refund and that
    this is the law ?? That's a strange one. I've never heard of it.

    If the consumer buys a product, takes it home, opens the box and finds it
    doesn't work, yes.. I'll agree with the spirit of this 'consumer law' you're
    quoting. It should be fixed or replaced by the seller. The seller should have
    a moral obligation to make things right.

    The warranty card shouldn't have been filled in. As someone else pointed out..
    It's in B&H's written sales policy. If the seller expects a new replacement
    camera or refund, that isn't going to happen.

    Once the camera is used and the warranty card is filled out, B&H could only be
    forced to act as an agent for the owner. What would happen in this case is:

    - The owner ships the defective camera (with warranty card) to B&H.

    - B&H then ships the camera & warranty info to the manufacturer's service
    center where it is repaired.

    - The service center returns the repaired camera to B&H.

    - B&H then ships a working camera back to the consumer.

    Even if such a law were true.. I'd prefer to save a *lot* of time and send the
    camera to the repair depot myself. What advantage is there to mailing the
    camera to B&H first rather than directly to the manufacturer's repair center ?
    Jim Townsend, Aug 11, 2003
    #4
  5. > We are talking about merchandise which is defective at the time of
    sale--that
    > is from the get go. What happens on down the line after the merchandise

    has
    > been in use is entirely different--unless it can be proved that the unit

    was
    > inherently defective and bound to fail which is complicated and often

    winds up
    > as class action lawsuits.


    That's still not enough to require that a vendor replace a product, for the
    obvious reason that the vendor isn't in a position to guarantee that
    whatever's wrong with the camera was definitely there from the start. This
    is a generic, not specific situation, and the laws are such so as to protect
    a vendor from the likely abuse that would occur if it were up to the
    consumer to determine if something was defective. The manufacturer is
    generally in the best position to determine this.

    That's not to say that something couldn't be so obvious that it's not a
    problem for the vendor to expect that the manufacturer will take care of it
    for them! But it is *not* the law that the vendor do so, at least not in
    any broad sweeping terms.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Aug 11, 2003
    #5
  6. > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise.


    Exactly. Don't leave the store until you get the refund. If they want to call
    the police, all the better as the law is in your favor. If they don't call the
    cops, you should.
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Frankhartx

    Mark M Guest

    "Frankhartx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Mark M"

    >
    > >), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    > >> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund

    simply
    > >> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.

    >
    > >In the future, you'll know better, and
    > >others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    > >require submission of the warran

    >
    > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise.


    I'm afraid it is you who are wrong here.
    Cite the law, please.

    There is no law such as this that cannot be written away in purchase
    agreements.
    Mark M, Aug 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Frankhartx

    Mark M Guest

    "Jon Wordsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > > defective merchandise.

    >
    > Exactly.


    Exactly...WRONG again.

    Cite the law. You cannot cite a law that garrantees this scenario not
    remaining intact, because there is no such law. While it sounds nice to
    makes claims of "consumer protection" etc., it is simply different in this
    case.

    Remember...all that is happening here is that the purchaser's means of
    remedy has shifted to the his relationship with the manufacturer rather than
    the seller.

    >Don't leave the store until you get the refund. If they want to call
    > the police, all the better as the law is in your favor. If they don't

    call the
    > cops, you should.
    >
    >
    Mark M, Aug 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Frankhartx

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Jon Wordsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > > defective merchandise.

    >
    > Exactly. Don't leave the store until you get the refund. If they want

    to call
    > the police, all the better as the law is in your favor. If they don't

    call the
    > cops, you should.


    And when the police come, the OP will be arrested for disorderly conduct and
    trespassing.

    I've already posted on this, but I'll do it one more time, since everyone
    seems so willing to play net-wannabe-lawyer. I _am_ a lawyer, and it's
    amusing (and that's a euphemism) to see all these posts stating what the law
    is when, in fact, the posters don't, for the most part, know what they're
    talking about.

    Most states in the US have implied into all purchases a warranty of
    merchantability and a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In lay
    terms, if you buy something, the seller has warranted that it will work and
    do what it is supposed to do. However, most states in the US allow sellers
    to disclaim these warranties. The requirements for disclaiming the implied
    warranties vary from state to state. However, B&H, which is located in New
    York (and, New York state law would most likely control) has specific
    _terms_ of purchase, i.e. the contract of purchase has been varied and, most
    likely, have the effect of varying or exclusing the implied warranties. I
    don't practice in New York, and I'm not familiar with New York law.
    However, I feel fairly confident in saying that, other than the implied
    warranties which, if they exist in New York, have almost certainly been
    disclaimed by virtue of B&H's terms of sale, there is NO law which requires
    merchants to except returns on unwanted merchandise, regardless of cause (up
    to and excluding outright fraud, of course). If some of you net-lawyers
    want to cite something specific, I'd be happy to look at it but, as far as
    I'm concerned, B&H is absolutely within its rights to, and has broken no law
    by, refusing to accept for return or exchange a product for which the
    warranty card has been filled in.

    Okay?



    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Aug 11, 2003
    #9
  10. "PTRAVEL" <> writes:

    [snip]

    > there is NO law which requires
    > merchants to except returns on unwanted merchandise, regardless of cause (up
    > to and excluding outright fraud, of course).


    I have problems parsing this sentence. Did you really mean "except" here or
    did you want to say "accept"? Otherwise, I am reading this as "there is no
    law allowing merchants to not accept returns on unwanted merchandise, regardless
    of cause" (modulo grammar mistakes).

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Aug 11, 2003
    #10
  11. > The police have no power in a case such as this.

    Sure they do, the power of psychology. They don't want the cops in the store
    for the customers to see and find out why they are there, they will give you the
    refund or replacement as they should have in the first place.

    > You can get justice only
    > through due process of law.


    Actually, that rarely EVER works. The company will have a more expensive lawyer
    than you and who ever has the most expensive lawyer wins regardless of what the
    case is about.
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 11, 2003
    #11
  12. Jon Wordsworth wrote:
    >>The police have no power in a case such as this.

    >
    >
    > Sure they do, the power of psychology. They don't want the cops in the store
    > for the customers to see and find out why they are there, they will give you the
    > refund or replacement as they should have in the first place.


    Yeah, right.
    Andrew McDonald, Aug 11, 2003
    #12
  13. Andrew McDonald wrote:

    > Jon Wordsworth wrote:
    > >>The police have no power in a case such as this.

    > >
    > >
    > > Sure they do, the power of psychology. They don't want the cops in the store
    > > for the customers to see and find out why they are there, they will give you the
    > > refund or replacement as they should have in the first place.

    >
    > Yeah, right.


    Try it.
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 11, 2003
    #13
  14. > And when the police come, the OP will be arrested for disorderly conduct and
    > trespassing.


    It is not trespassing. Remember the cop that did arrest the guy for
    trespassing in a public mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt earlier this
    year? The charges were dropped and people fired because it is NOT
    trespassing. Otherwise everyone in a store right now would be arrested.
    Idiots. All of you. IDIOTS.
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 11, 2003
    #14
  15. Frankhartx

    Tom Scales Guest

    Could you cite the specific law please. A link to a reputable site would
    help.

    Since you're, uh, wrong.

    Tom
    "Frankhartx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Mark M"

    >
    > >), so I call up B&H to exchange the
    > >> camera and they said that I could NOT exchange or receive a refund

    simply
    > >> because I filled out the warranty card for the camera.

    >
    > >In the future, you'll know better, and
    > >others here will learn from your mistake. BTW--Most manufacturers do NOT
    > >require submission of the warran

    >
    > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > defective merchandise. This has nothing to do with the warrantly or any

    policy
    > of the manufacturer or the dealer. Any rule or practice that is contrary

    to
    > public policy--that being the law- is null and void. B&H as the vendor is
    > responsible for following the law and replacing or refunding the purchase
    > price--no if's ands or buts.
    Tom Scales, Aug 12, 2003
    #15
  16. Frankhartx

    John O. Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > Absolulely wrong--under consumer law the vendor must refund or replace
    > > defective merchandise.

    >
    > Exactly. Don't leave the store until you get the refund. If they want to call
    > the police, all the better as the law is in your favor. If they don't call the
    > cops, you should.
    >
    >
    >

    J.W.: Hello, Police? Yeah, my name is Jon "troll" Wordsworthless. I'm
    at B&H and they won't refund my money. Come quick.

    Police: click.... buzzzzzzz.

    Or better yet... they take you in for being an idiot.
    --
    John O.
    There is no slack in light attack.
    John O., Aug 12, 2003
    #16
  17. Frankhartx

    John O. Guest


    >
    > It is not trespassing. Remember the cop that did arrest the guy for
    > trespassing in a public mall for wearing an anti-war T-shirt earlier this
    > year? The charges were dropped and people fired because it is NOT
    > trespassing. Otherwise everyone in a store right now would be arrested.
    > Idiots. All of you. IDIOTS.
    >
    >
    >

    Ever open a Sony video camera box? It says on the underside of the lid
    NOT to take defective cameras back to the retailer.... how does your
    made up law take that into account? I ask only for information.

    Your posts are a blast to read. It's like poking a badger with a stick.
    I mean, I know what you are going to say is going to be really stupid.
    Yet I read it anyway and find myself responding. I'll probably get
    killfiled by people I respect just for talking to you, but I can't
    resist! You are the NET equivalent to picking a scab or slowing down to
    look at a really bad traffic accident.

    Oh. The case you mention is all screwed-up because of the political
    nature of the charge. Freedom of speech and all that. Under normal
    circumstances the story would never have been written and the dude would
    have been hauled away.


    --
    John O.
    There is no slack in light attack.
    John O., Aug 12, 2003
    #17
  18. John O. wrote:
    > J.W.: Hello, Police? Yeah, my name is Jon "troll" Wordsworthless. I'm
    > at B&H and they won't refund my money. Come quick.
    >
    > Police: click.... buzzzzzzz.
    >
    > Or better yet... they take you in for being an idiot.


    Better yet they shoot him and keep him from polluting the gene pool.
    Andrew McDonald, Aug 12, 2003
    #18
  19. Frankhartx

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "DS" <spam_me_not@buzz_off.net> wrote in message
    news:hs0_a.3848$...
    > He said he was a lawyer. He didn't say he was a smart lawyer - one who
    > knows how to spell!
    >
    > I'm guessing he spends more time chasing ambulances than lawyering. :eek:)


    Neither. I just don't spend time proof-reading. ;)


    >
    > DS
    >
    > "Dragan Cvetkovic" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "PTRAVEL" <> writes:
    > >
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > > > there is NO law which

    > requires
    > > > merchants to except returns on unwanted merchandise, regardless of

    cause
    > (up
    > > > to and excluding outright fraud, of course).

    > >
    > > I have problems parsing this sentence. Did you really mean "except" here

    > or
    > > did you want to say "accept"? Otherwise, I am reading this as "there is

    no
    > > law allowing merchants to not accept returns on unwanted merchandise,

    > regardless
    > > of cause" (modulo grammar mistakes).
    > >
    > > Bye, Dragan
    > >
    > > --
    > > Dragan Cvetkovic,
    > >
    > > To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
    > >
    > > !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Aug 12, 2003
    #19
  20. Frankhartx

    Mikey Guest

    Don't worry, he doesn't plan on reproducing anyway apparently.
    see.. news:<>

    Thank goodness.

    --

    Mikey
    http://www.mike721.com


    "Andrew McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:sD4_a.3277$...
    > John O. wrote:
    > > J.W.: Hello, Police? Yeah, my name is Jon "troll" Wordsworthless. I'm
    > > at B&H and they won't refund my money. Come quick.
    > >
    > > Police: click.... buzzzzzzz.
    > >
    > > Or better yet... they take you in for being an idiot.

    >
    > Better yet they shoot him and keep him from polluting the gene pool.
    >
    Mikey, Aug 12, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shane & Kimberly Gilbert

    Shame on B&H

    Shane & Kimberly Gilbert, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    71
    Views:
    2,087
    Lionel
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. BandHPhoto

    Re: Shame on B&H

    BandHPhoto, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    407
    Mark M
    Aug 11, 2003
  3. BandHPhoto

    Re: Shame on B&H

    BandHPhoto, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,934
    BandHPhoto
    Aug 12, 2003
  4. Rupert
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    614
  5. Poch

    Shame to loose this group

    Poch, Jun 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    451
Loading...

Share This Page