I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’m sure, and unless his lawyers can have section D struck from the agreement somehow I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
For normal people who don’t want to spend the time, effort and energy not to mention cash if you lose to sue I am not sure what relief you could suggest for them. I don’t see anything beyond the typical social media posts where you beg for somebody like GN to buy it from you or for their social media team to eat the cost of a replacement which is wholly unrealistic imo.
oh and their warranty has a fucking arbitration clause and puts it’s legal area in korea, that’s fun and another hurdle which is a total unknown to me how it will go down, but I would guess their arbitration can’t be much better for consumers than the US one.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of Korea (excluding conflict of law’s provisions which may direct the application of
another jurisdiction’s laws). All disputes, controversies or claims between the parties arising
out of or in connection with this Agreement (including its existence, validity or termination)
shall be finally resolved by arbitration to be held in Seoul, Korea and conducted in English
under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitral award
shall be final and binding on the parties. Except to the extent entry of judgment and any
subsequent enforcement may require disclosure, all matters relating to the arbitration,
including the award, shall be held in confidence.
I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
I mean it’s a very simple thing. Each sentence does not invalidate or preclude the one after or before it, all statements can be true without conflict.
From the article:
the SSD maker offered to refund him the original $330 he paid for the drive
so they are offering his original purchase price.
Section D states without any conditions for it to apply:
in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product.
This is a carte blanche statement capping the total dollar value of the warranty at the price originally paid. It’s no less valid than section B outlining the terabytes written and years after purchase as limiting factors of when the warranty applies. This sentence is literally the reason why they are offering the original purchase price of $330 and not one cent more. They do not offer to refund today’s purchase price of 1099.99 on their website (assuming he bought it directly from them) because they don’t have to.
If they offered a model that was in the grid as being 0.1TB written or 1 year, the warranty would only be that long. B is establishing those limits, even though the product has a warranty those conditions apply for the warranty and it’s remedies to be effective. It doesn’t limit the scope of the remedy, but it does limit the conditions of which the warranty applies. The warranty as described in section A is specifically worded to be broad and then limited by all other conditions in the warranty agreement.
Section A is effectively saying they exclusively choose the remedy from the available options: A refund no more than the market value (which is limited in section D to the purchase price) or a replacement.
If they had opted to choose to refund him and the product had dropped in price from $330 to $50, they could opt to provide a $50 refund as that is the new market value and also under their liability limit.
I started off on here with a comment saying the entire system is setup to screw consumers and give them the best benefit. It’s true. It’s just not done in a plain way and easily confused by those not carefully reading the entire fairly brief agreement.
edit: another way to think about how legal agreements work is to change the formatting so that every single whole sentence is a bullet point under section headings. The clauses can stand alone unless they’re very ambiguous. There’s no ambiguity here, there’s an actual purchase price and a limit being imposed. It doesn’t depend on anything else to be effective and it doesn’t just apply to a subset of scenarios. The only thing that seems to defeat it in the entire document is local laws.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’m sure, and unless his lawyers can have section D struck from the agreement somehow I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
For normal people who don’t want to spend the time, effort and energy not to mention cash if you lose to sue I am not sure what relief you could suggest for them. I don’t see anything beyond the typical social media posts where you beg for somebody like GN to buy it from you or for their social media team to eat the cost of a replacement which is wholly unrealistic imo.
oh and their warranty has a fucking arbitration clause and puts it’s legal area in korea, that’s fun and another hurdle which is a total unknown to me how it will go down, but I would guess their arbitration can’t be much better for consumers than the US one.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
Specifically what part of Section D concerns you?
I mean it’s a very simple thing. Each sentence does not invalidate or preclude the one after or before it, all statements can be true without conflict.
From the article:
so they are offering his original purchase price.
Section D states without any conditions for it to apply:
This is a carte blanche statement capping the total dollar value of the warranty at the price originally paid. It’s no less valid than section B outlining the terabytes written and years after purchase as limiting factors of when the warranty applies. This sentence is literally the reason why they are offering the original purchase price of $330 and not one cent more. They do not offer to refund today’s purchase price of 1099.99 on their website (assuming he bought it directly from them) because they don’t have to.
If they offered a model that was in the grid as being 0.1TB written or 1 year, the warranty would only be that long. B is establishing those limits, even though the product has a warranty those conditions apply for the warranty and it’s remedies to be effective. It doesn’t limit the scope of the remedy, but it does limit the conditions of which the warranty applies. The warranty as described in section A is specifically worded to be broad and then limited by all other conditions in the warranty agreement.
Section A is effectively saying they exclusively choose the remedy from the available options: A refund no more than the market value (which is limited in section D to the purchase price) or a replacement.
If they had opted to choose to refund him and the product had dropped in price from $330 to $50, they could opt to provide a $50 refund as that is the new market value and also under their liability limit.
I started off on here with a comment saying the entire system is setup to screw consumers and give them the best benefit. It’s true. It’s just not done in a plain way and easily confused by those not carefully reading the entire fairly brief agreement.
edit: another way to think about how legal agreements work is to change the formatting so that every single whole sentence is a bullet point under section headings. The clauses can stand alone unless they’re very ambiguous. There’s no ambiguity here, there’s an actual purchase price and a limit being imposed. It doesn’t depend on anything else to be effective and it doesn’t just apply to a subset of scenarios. The only thing that seems to defeat it in the entire document is local laws.