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.
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.