The CGA and returning goods

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Hi,

    Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?

    I do not believe so myself...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jul 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    RL Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    > I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >
    > I do not believe so myself...


    I don't believe so either. Not suitable for the intended purpose,
    repair, replace, refund.

    On a related note, if you bugger up your DVD drive flashing it to region
    free firmware, I'd insist on a fix under the CGA as well. They key is
    that if they know why you are buying the drive, and flashing the
    firmware is quite a reasonable thing for someone to do, then it isn't
    suitable for the intended purpose, period.

    RL
     
    RL, Jul 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    BTMO Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote

    > Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if I
    > return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?


    Was it an explicit condition of sale? Actually, I don't think that
    matters...

    .... unless it *IS* functional, and just doesn't work with your system, then
    all bets are off.

    > I do not believe so myself...


    Personally, neither do I (subject to the "unless" above). Things have to be
    fit for purpose. Dangle the CGA over their heads and see what they say.
     
    BTMO, Jul 5, 2007
    #3
  4. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee
    > if I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >
    > I do not believe so myself...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    I think that they can (/fairly/) charge you. After all, the goods aren't
    faulty, it sounds like an incompatibility problem which wasn't their fault.
    (Unless they recommended the card for your system). AGAIK the CGA dosn't
    come into play.

    Sorry. I could be wrong though.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 5, 2007
    #4
  5. thingy

    RL Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > I think that they can (/fairly/) charge you. After all, the goods aren't
    > faulty, it sounds like an incompatibility problem which wasn't their fault.
    > (Unless they recommended the card for your system). AGAIK the CGA dosn't
    > come into play.
    >
    > Sorry. I could be wrong though.


    If it were a copy protected pseudo-audio CD that high-end AV gear can't
    play, it applies. How would it be any different if you insert a card in
    to a computer and not a CD in to a player?

    Then again, our laws are full of BS which makes one thing okay and
    another not, despite them being logically identical.

    RL
     
    RL, Jul 5, 2007
    #5
  6. thingy

    Jerry Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    > I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >
    > I do not believe so myself...


    What is the whole story, you aren't telling us much. Do they have a
    published policy on a re-stocking fee? Did they assure you that the
    card you purchased would work on your system? I see the point of it
    really, and not just for the effort to put the card back on the shelf.
    You opened it (presumably) broke the seals and some percentage of their
    customers (not necessarily you) will have ESD'd the card. There is an
    increased chance the next buyer will return the card. Also, the next
    purchaser will see the seals broken and want a discount. If you have
    cost them money and it wasn't their fault, why should other purchasers
    other than you have to pay for the losses?
     
    Jerry, Jul 5, 2007
    #6
  7. thingy wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    > I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >
    > I do not believe so myself...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing

    If you supplied the specifications of your machine to them and they
    assured you that the card would be compatible, Then you should be able
    to return it with no restocking fee

    If you just told them you wanted that card without letting them know
    what system you have, Then basically its your fault and they dont even
    have to take the item back

    If the item was actually faulty, then it should just be replaced with a
    working unit at no charge to you

    If the item is faulty and incompatible, the retailer should replace the
    item or take the item back without a restocking fee - as the item will
    be replaced by thier supplier and presumably replaced with a new item

    If the retailer does not state in their terms and conditions that there
    is a restocking fee, then if they accept a return, they cant charge you
    a restocking fee.

    By opening the item you have reduced its value, Its considered second
    hand and if all you want to do is send it back because you dont want it
    anymore - various reasons like its incompatable, You change your mind on
    the colour.... They are not obliged to refund and if they do they should
    be allowed to charge a restocking fee.

    Basically, It all depends on the situation, If you can provide more
    details then i could probably give you a better answer.

    You could also think of it in reverse. You sold the item to someone
    else, What would you do? - based on exactly the same situation as this is
     
    nntp.aioe.org, Jul 5, 2007
    #7
  8. thingy

    jack Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:41:55 +1200, Jerry <> wrote:

    >thingy wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    >> I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >>
    >> I do not believe so myself...

    >
    >What is the whole story, you aren't telling us much. Do they have a
    >published policy on a re-stocking fee? Did they assure you that the
    >card you purchased would work on your system? I see the point of it
    >really, and not just for the effort to put the card back on the shelf.
    >You opened it (presumably) broke the seals and some percentage of their
    >customers (not necessarily you) will have ESD'd the card. There is an
    >increased chance the next buyer will return the card. Also, the next
    >purchaser will see the seals broken and want a discount. If you have
    >cost them money and it wasn't their fault, why should other purchasers
    >other than you have to pay for the losses?




    And was it installed by a Authorize installer..?

    Car Radios have a clause that if its not installed by a Auto Electrician its not cover by any
    warrantee.
     
    jack, Jul 5, 2007
    #8
  9. thingy

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:59:49 +1200, thingy <thing@/dev/null>
    exclaimed:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    >I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?


    It depends. If they said it would work on your system, or you showed
    them your system and asked for a graphics card for it, or asked
    specifically whether it would work on your machine before you bought
    it (and they said "yes"), then the CGA would probably apply.

    If you buy "a graphics card", and get "a graphics card", the CGA
    doesn't apply just because you're not able to use it.

    Having said that, unless it's a specialist item you'd think they'd
    just replace it for you with one that does work...
     
    Fred Dagg, Jul 5, 2007
    #9
  10. thingy

    Richard Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee
    >> if I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >>
    >> I do not believe so myself...

    >
    > What is the whole story, you aren't telling us much. Do they have a
    > published policy on a re-stocking fee? Did they assure you that the
    > card you purchased would work on your system? I see the point of it
    > really, and not just for the effort to put the card back on the shelf.
    > You opened it (presumably) broke the seals and some percentage of their
    > customers (not necessarily you) will have ESD'd the card. There is an
    > increased chance the next buyer will return the card. Also, the next
    > purchaser will see the seals broken and want a discount. If you have
    > cost them money and it wasn't their fault, why should other purchasers
    > other than you have to pay for the losses?


    Because the way the law makes retailers operatin in NZ means they have
    to allow people to return things for these and many other reasons, yet
    people complain about high markups on goods in NZ.

    Restock is fair enough if the card is not faulty. If the nannystate
    consumer protectionists agree is another matter, and its their opinion
    which is the only one that matters.
     
    Richard, Jul 5, 2007
    #10
  11. thingy

    Richard Guest

    jack wrote:

    > And was it installed by a Authorize installer..?
    >
    > Car Radios have a clause that if its not installed by a Auto Electrician its not cover by any
    > warrantee.


    That is actually not enforceable on car audio, the installation is not
    warrantable if not done by an installer, but the warranty on the stereo
    itself still stands, particularly if you buy from a place that also
    sells the looms to do the install your self, and buy them at the same
    time since its clear what is happening.

    To many people are prepared to take the no answer that any place gives
    when asked for support initially.

    If a faulty installation caused the damage to the item, like some dumb
    ass grounding out the illumination wire of the car thru the head deck or
    not grounding the amp properly so running it thru the RCA shield etc,
    then its immediately obvious when the head deck is opened thanks to the
    fusible links in it.
     
    Richard, Jul 5, 2007
    #11
  12. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:59:49 +1200, thingy <thing@/dev/null>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    >> I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?

    >
    > It depends. If they said it would work on your system, or you showed
    > them your system and asked for a graphics card for it, or asked
    > specifically whether it would work on your machine before you bought
    > it (and they said "yes"), then the CGA would probably apply.


    In this case, Yes, I emailed and asked. Since it works in win2k but not
    XP I am pretty sure its a bad driver. ATI also made some nasty
    assumptions, with every graphics card I have come across before, after
    installing the driver and rebooting you get vga mode and then you set
    the resolution. With this one it sets 1600 x1200 on boot and because it
    has issues you cannot get into the control panel to change any settings.
    Booting in safe mode means the graphics driver is not active so ATI's
    control panel will not function, ergo I am stuffed I cannot manually
    control the card to fault find.

    If an item is sold as XP and PC compatible, and I am running XP on a
    standard PC it was sold for its expected purpose to my mind, so it
    should work. eg If I bought it for Linux and it did not work and it was
    not advertised as Linux compatible, then I'd be on my own I accept that.

    The CGA seems pretty powerful and while I can understand the company
    would suffer a loss (as the card is no longer new) but without a right
    to return if it does not work on ***MY*** system, it pretty much
    absolves the retailer and manufacturer of any responsibility.

    A classic would be the anti-piracy measures on dvds, the dvd spec states
    to have the compatibility sticker on a movie means no drm (it is not
    part of Philips std)...I have hit that on occasion (not for at least 3
    years though, so they seem to have fixed their buggy crap) where a dvd
    would not play in my PC but would play in a real dvd player....

    > If you buy "a graphics card", and get "a graphics card", the CGA
    > doesn't apply just because you're not able to use it.
    >
    > Having said that, unless it's a specialist item you'd think they'd
    > just replace it for you with one that does work...


    Someone like DSE always has, I have bought burners and other bits off
    them and they have failed to work and they have taken the stuff
    back...then they are big enough to absorb such a loss and the sales guy
    is not losing it out of his pocket. The upside for them is they get
    pretty much get constant business as a result.

    I spent 10 odd hours on this, last night I put the nvidia card back in
    installed a new driver and rebooted, set 1152 x 780 and in 12 minutes (I
    watched the clock) I could play games...now that is how it should be.

    So if nvidia can write stuff that works with what I have properly I
    cannot see that its my fault. I will not be getting an ATI card again
    that is for sure.....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jul 5, 2007
    #12
  13. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee
    >>> if I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >>>
    >>> I do not believe so myself...

    >>
    >> What is the whole story, you aren't telling us much. Do they have a
    >> published policy on a re-stocking fee? Did they assure you that the
    >> card you purchased would work on your system? I see the point of it
    >> really, and not just for the effort to put the card back on the shelf.
    >> You opened it (presumably) broke the seals and some percentage of
    >> their customers (not necessarily you) will have ESD'd the card. There
    >> is an increased chance the next buyer will return the card. Also, the
    >> next purchaser will see the seals broken and want a discount. If you
    >> have cost them money and it wasn't their fault, why should other
    >> purchasers other than you have to pay for the losses?

    >
    > Because the way the law makes retailers operatin in NZ means they have
    > to allow people to return things for these and many other reasons, yet
    > people complain about high markups on goods in NZ.
    >
    > Restock is fair enough if the card is not faulty. If the nannystate
    > consumer protectionists agree is another matter, and its their opinion
    > which is the only one that matters.


    There is an expectation that the item is fit for purpose, if the item is
    sold as XP and PC compatible, well to my mind if they make such a broad
    statement and it does not work, they should be liable. Otherwise there
    would be no point in any protection or warrantee (which I grant would
    probably make goods cheaper but would ppl buy?).

    From what I can gather the markup is due to NZs
    wholesalers/manufacturers having the market pretty much sealed up NZ.
    "Our" retailers have to buy off them so the end guy is probably making a
    small % and is liable, the NZ arm of the big company is laughing and the
    one making the big %. So as for trying to add a political statement into
    this, sorry, I think you fall flat on your face....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jul 5, 2007
    #13
  14. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee
    >> if I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >>
    >> I do not believe so myself...

    >
    > What is the whole story, you aren't telling us much. Do they have a
    > published policy on a re-stocking fee? Did they assure you that the
    > card you purchased would work on your system? I see the point of it
    > really, and not just for the effort to put the card back on the shelf.
    > You opened it (presumably) broke the seals and some percentage of their
    > customers (not necessarily you) will have ESD'd the card. There is an
    > increased chance the next buyer will return the card. Also, the next
    > purchaser will see the seals broken and want a discount. If you have
    > cost them money and it wasn't their fault, why should other purchasers
    > other than you have to pay for the losses?


    Yes, I agree, however "fit for purpose" I have commented elsewhere in
    more detail, at the moment our interchange is pleasant and professional,
    I am hoping it ends well.

    One of the "classic" mistakes people make is that they assume they are
    correct and convince themselves it is so when before a court it is not
    seen as reasonable and fair.

    I find it interesting that with computers and IT in particular there
    seems to be a far bigger grey area on items sold than is the case in
    other areas.

    One of my big concerns is that there is this broad brush statement about
    hardware and software being compatible, when in reality it often is not.
    Now should a consumer be left with is issue? generally no I think not,

    eg if item A works with B, but item C does not work with A, is that the
    consumers fault or C's or A's? The consumer bought A and C expecting
    them to work because consumer was told so in a broad brush manner....C's
    maker made a statement, consumer with an item takes that at face value
    then finds it is not the case, is consumer on his own? I do not believe
    so. It's very messy, item A was sold a while back and work[s/ed] fine,
    is A responsible for C not working? bit of a stretch....far more than
    the other way around.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jul 5, 2007
    #14
  15. On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:57:26 +1200, thingy wrote:

    > From what I can gather the markup is due to NZs
    > wholesalers/manufacturers having the market pretty much sealed up NZ.
    > "Our" retailers have to buy off them so the end guy is probably making a
    > small % and is liable, the NZ arm of the big company is laughing and the
    > one making the big %. So as for trying to add a political statement into
    > this, sorry, I think you fall flat on your face....


    In my past experience of retail, most shops would usually put at least a
    100% markup on top of what it cost them to purchase it. The aim was for
    approx a 30% gross profit (ie 20% of the sale price covers things like the
    building, wages, breakages, etc, 50% is the cost of purchasing the goods,
    and 30% gross profit before tax).

    When I worked in Hospo the kitchen aimed at 30% food coast, 30% wage
    cost, and 30% gross profit.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 5, 2007
    #15
  16. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:57:26 +1200, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> From what I can gather the markup is due to NZs
    >> wholesalers/manufacturers having the market pretty much sealed up NZ.
    >> "Our" retailers have to buy off them so the end guy is probably making a
    >> small % and is liable, the NZ arm of the big company is laughing and the
    >> one making the big %. So as for trying to add a political statement into
    >> this, sorry, I think you fall flat on your face....

    >
    > In my past experience of retail, most shops would usually put at least a
    > 100% markup on top of what it cost them to purchase it. The aim was for
    > approx a 30% gross profit (ie 20% of the sale price covers things like the
    > building, wages, breakages, etc, 50% is the cost of purchasing the goods,
    > and 30% gross profit before tax).
    >
    > When I worked in Hospo the kitchen aimed at 30% food coast, 30% wage
    > cost, and 30% gross profit.
    >
    >


    yep, but the IT retail sector's margins are more like 5~10%....having
    worked in a range of retail.....clothing/shoes for instance is usually
    very big, 100~300%, car parts smaller at 30%....(all
    gross)....crazy....hence big sales.....they never happen in computers
    there is simply no margin for it.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jul 5, 2007
    #16
  17. In article <468c9d83$>, thingy <thing@/dev/null> wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >Would it be considered fair to have to suffer a 25% "re-stocking" fee if
    >I return a graphics card because it will not work on my system?
    >
    >I do not believe so myself...


    If they told you it would work, hell no.
    If they didn't ? ... well ... did they say that anywhere obvious when you
    bought it ? A small sign wouldn't count ... a small sign brought "to your
    attention" could :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 6, 2007
    #17
  18. In article <468d4894$>, thingy <thing@/dev/null> wrote:
    (snip)
    >One of my big concerns is that there is this broad brush statement about
    >hardware and software being compatible, when in reality it often is not.
    >Now should a consumer be left with is issue? generally no I think not,
    >
    >eg if item A works with B, but item C does not work with A, is that the
    >consumers fault or C's or A's? The consumer bought A and C expecting
    >them to work because consumer was told so in a broad brush manner....C's
    >maker made a statement, consumer with an item takes that at face value
    >then finds it is not the case, is consumer on his own? I do not believe
    >so. It's very messy, item A was sold a while back and work[s/ed] fine,
    >is A responsible for C not working? bit of a stretch....far more than
    >the other way around.


    The good news here is that if you bought it all off the same crowd, it's
    their problem and they get to sort it out with A, B and C :)
    If you didn't, it's rather like what used to happen when calling about a
    power fault ... the lines company say it's the supply and vice versa. Then
    the only thing you can be sure of is it will take a while and be a pain,
    whatever the outcome :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 6, 2007
    #18
  19. In article <f6icmb$gir$>, "nntp.aioe.org" <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >You could also think of it in reverse. You sold the item to someone
    >else, What would you do? - based on exactly the same situation as this is


    Quite. The real moral here is ... ask "them" if it will work before you buy
    it. If it doesn't, that's definitely their problem :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 6, 2007
    #19
  20. In article <468d43c7$>, thingy <thing@/dev/null> wrote:
    >If an item is sold as XP and PC compatible, and I am running XP on a
    >standard PC it was sold for its expected purpose to my mind, so it
    >should work. eg If I bought it for Linux and it did not work and it was
    >not advertised as Linux compatible, then I'd be on my own I accept that.


    Sure ... but FYI I've been surprised at how many retailers are prepared to
    sell on a "I have no idea if it works under linux but buy it, try it and
    bring it back if it doesn't" basis. :)

    >A classic would be the anti-piracy measures on dvds, the dvd spec states
    >to have the compatibility sticker on a movie means no drm (it is not
    >part of Philips std)...I have hit that on occasion (not for at least 3
    >years though, so they seem to have fixed their buggy crap) where a dvd
    >would not play in my PC but would play in a real dvd player....


    Again, if you ask if it will play on a PC, they say yes and it doesn't,
    that's their problem.

    >Someone like DSE always has, I have bought burners and other bits off
    >them and they have failed to work and they have taken the stuff
    >back...then they are big enough to absorb such a loss and the sales guy
    >is not losing it out of his pocket. The upside for them is they get
    >pretty much get constant business as a result.


    OTOH, I once bought a switchable power pack which blew up. They said I
    "broke" it and were not even prepared to replace it until I wrote to head
    office. <sigh> Perhaps some branches are better than others ? :)

    >So if nvidia can write stuff that works with what I have properly I
    >cannot see that its my fault. I will not be getting an ATI card again
    >that is for sure.....


    ... and this is the part that retailers don't get. If their service looks
    like "as little as we can legally do" people won't go back. How is that hard
    to understand ? That said, I have had serious disagreements with some
    retailers which have eventually been resolved and since dealt with them and
    had good service. Only one thing beats great service ... great service when
    there's a problem :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 6, 2007
    #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. Frank.b
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    590
    Frank.b
    Nov 22, 2004
  2. Chef!

    OT: tax on import goods?

    Chef!, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    467
    Chef!
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. yoyoyeah
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    331
    yoyoyeah
    Dec 26, 2007
  4. Blue
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
  5. Sailor Sam
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    428
    victor
    Nov 22, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page