General RMA Policy

[Oldjim]

In a number of threads recently I have noticed that Scan have tested and found the item to be faulty but rather than issue an immediate replacement have then sent the item back to the manufacturer for testing before issuing a replacement.
Is this standard on all items or only for certain manufacturers such as XFX

[Adamb]

Oldjim

The procedure differs between different items and manufacturers, indeed with XFX we must return all suspected faulty items back to the manufacturer.

Regards,

[Oldjim]

Thanks for the clarification.
I did a bit of digging and found the XFX UK RMA policy ftp://www.xfxsupport.com/public/other/EU_RMA_TC.pdf which states

Returning your item to XFX for examination is done so on the acceptance of the
following terms and conditions. Warranty for your card remains the sole
responsibility of your reseller and not the manufacturer/distributor. Although
XFX are under no legal obligation to provide warranty, XFX will help where
possible.

Given that the UK Sale of Goods Act doesn't allow them to duck responsibility if the reseller won't assist it does give an indication of the XFX approach.

[Saracen]

Thanks for the clarification.
I did a bit of digging and found the XFX UK RMA policy ftp://www.xfxsupport.com/public/other/EU_RMA_TC.pdf which states Given that the UK Sale of Goods Act doesn't allow them to duck responsibility if the reseller won't assist it does give an indication of the XFX approach.

Wrong way round, Oldjim. It's the seller that can't duck Sale of Goods Act liability, not the manufacturer. This is because your Sale of Goods Act rights form part of the contract of sale, and you don't have a contract with the manufacturer. The SoGA works by embedding it's requirements into sale contracts as an implied term.

[Oldjim]

whoops - you are correct of course but I was still appalled by this statement which, in my opinion makes XFX a company to avoid as XFX are in effect saying that it isn't their warranty

Warranty for your card remains the sole responsibility of your reseller and not the manufacturer/distributor

I don't know of any other manufacturer taking that approach

[Saracen]

....but I was still appalled by this statement which, in my opinion makes XFX a company to avoid as XFX are in effect saying that it isn't their warranty ....

Not necessarily.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the XFX guarantee offers a degree of cover in addition to statutory rights, but it operates via the seller. This may well be because, for example, XFX have an arrangement with the seller where there's some level of checking done by the seller before involving XFX. There may be all sorts of operational reasons for them doing that. In which case, what they (XFX) are saying is that they provide a warranty but, as with ANY warranty, it only offers what it offers, and it uses the procedure they define .... in this case, to be operated via the seller. Perhaps they simply don't have the resources/inclination to deal direct with the public. Perhaps their pricing structure to the trade reflects this arrangement.

But whatever the reason, if XFX operate their warranty via the seller, then that's a legitimate thing to do, and it would mean that if a faulty product is dealt with via this warranty, then the seller is effectively just an agent administering the public-facing part of it for XFX, and can only do, under the warranty, what XFX instruct them to do.

The consumer does, of course, always have their statutory rights, and they can't be reduced by a warranty. And the manufacturer isn't obliged to offer a guarantee at all. So however you look at it, a manufacturer warranty can only be a good thing, because at the very worst, it leaves you no better off and no worse off than you otherwise were. And it might well provide a degree of extra benefit. How much benefit, and whether the consumer wishes to utilise it, is another matter. In another recent thread, a consumer got a partial refund via the guarantee, when if he'd had to rely on his legal rights, he may well have been hard-pushed to demonstrate that he was entitled to anything at all. The consumer might not get what he wants via an additional guarantee, but it's better than nothing at all.