Asus Motherboard Blues

[GoNz0]

im afraid all posts that end up with legal action get locked for obvious reasons.

good will is rare and the last time i saw it was a customer who was less than 24 hours out of his scansure warranty..

scan do need to reconsider this as a flaw at the build stage and sort there act out instead of fobbing you off as its near impossible to bend that pin without damaging surrounding ones, and the socket design is known to have bad pins.

[Ph4ZeD]

Why should Scan have to reconsider this? Their margins will be so tight on these items, their "goodwill" would mean they would have to sell several of the same motherboard over in order to recoup that cost. Asus already stated that they would not process this item under warranty so Scan would simply have to chuck the item in the bin and swallow the cost. They should NOT have to do this when the said user cannot check the board for damage before doing a build.

[GoNz0]

does it say check with microscope before 1st use?

and all they need do is send to asus instead of making the choice not to.

[divinemadness]

does it say check with microscope before 1st use?

and all they need do is send to asus instead of making the choice not to.

No but it does say to at least check which Tobias, if I recall correctly, has openly admitted to not doing at all.

What would sending it to Asus achieve? They've already said they won't touch it so it would just be a waste of courier fees.

[Ricco]

Again my post has been diluted.
If anyone is actualy bothered to know, the VCC/VSS pins account for a good 70% of the total pins available, and the amount of current flowing through these pins is minimal.
If anyone wishes to check for quadrant the white paper can be read HERE page 38.

As for sparking- impossible, the voltage supplied on these pins is way to low to jump any possible gap (path of least resistance), nor is the current high enough to cause 'arcing' unless a condition could occur of very little contact of the remaining VCC pads.

Again, the board will WORK regardless of that deffective pin (it is just one of many that are VCC).

[rabbid]

Just trying to understand:
Did the OP receive the board with untampered seals intact on the mobo box and anti static bag?
Was there a socket protector present and fitted correctly at time of opening?
Was it returned to Scan with said socket protector fitted and was it received by Scan with this socket protector in place?

Still waiting for an answer to this....

[DavidP]

Ricco is on the money here...

If anyone is actually bothered to know, the VCC/VSS pins account for a good 70% of the total pins available, and the amount of current flowing through these pins is minimal...
Again, the board will WORK regardless of that defective pin (it is just one of many that are VCC).

Except as Tobias said originally, the board was not stable and does not perform as it should. Therefore it is defective, regardless of the bent pin and should be replaced or refunded.

[Ph4ZeD]

Ricco is on the money here...



Except as Tobias said originally, the board was not stable and does not perform as it should. Therefore it is defective, regardless of the bent pin and should be replaced or refunded.

Except you did NOT check the board for damage, proceeded to try and use it, THEN noticed the damage.
This is the absolutely key fact which is why if you take it to the small claims court you will loose as any
right minded person will come to the conclusion that you have damaged the board yourself.

[Saracen]

Except you did NOT check the board for damage, proceeded to try and use it, THEN noticed the damage.
This is the absolutely key fact which is why if you take it to the small claims court you will loose as any
right minded person will come to the conclusion that you have damaged the board yourself.

There is NO onus on the consumer to check for defects or lose any right to a remedy. That simply isn't the case.

And nobody can presume to know in advance how a court will see the situation, or how they will rule. For a start, this is because nobody knows in advance how facts and evidence will be presented, or how the situation will be assessed.

What is clear, though, is that IF a fault existed on delivery, then a remedy will be required. And, given the statutory assumption of the burden of proof, Scan would have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that, on balance of probability, the damage was done by the user. In trying to determine who "will" lose the case, you have to make a judgement on that, and it's only ever going to be an opinion.


As far as I can see, the only FACT we really know for sure is that the board is in some way defective, and that the two parties don't agree on how it got that way.

Is it possible that the buyer damaged it without realising it? Without having stood and watched him install, my opinion would be yes, it is.

Is it possible that he knows he did so? Again, without knowing the guy, yes it is, though I'm NOT suggesting that that is the case.

But by that same token, in order to assess the board and discover damage, someone at Scan MUST have inspected the board, and certainly in order to photograph it, they had the contact pins exposed. Could that person have damaged it? Without having stood and watched them, or knowing exactly how controlled Scan's testing facilities are, the answer has to be yes. And if damage did occur in that way, would the person that did it necessarily know? Well, as with the buyer, maybe yes and maybe no. We have no way to know.

And, regardless of a damaged pin, was there an inherent fault before that damage occurred, or is that damage responsible for the problems with the board? Because if so, Scan are likely to be liable, and it's then up to them to sort it out with the manufacturer if the damage occurred before Scan got the board, and I don't see how we can be absolutely sure that didn't happen. How automated is the assembly line? Does a human insert the socket pin protector, and if so, could it have been damaged then? Because if that happened, neither Scan nor the buyer did any damage and, again, Scan are liable to the consumer, regardless of whether the manufacturer will own up or not.

An awful lot of this will be hard to prove either way and both the buyer and Scan could well be, and in the absence of proof otherwise, I'd assume are acting in complete good faith about where they feel damage occurred and who is liable. But as far as a consumer is concerned, the court would require Scan to "establish" that the fault was not present when the board was delivered. They'd be required to demonstrate that their procedures and processes made in unlikely, on balance of probability, to have occurred either before they got it, or in anything they do before shipping (such as opening the board to apply tracking or warranty stickers), or after they got it back under RMA.

It is, IMHO, awfully presumptuous to assume that either Scan or the buyer necessarily would win such a case ..... in the unlikely event that it ever got that far.

[divinemadness]

Is it definitely like that? As I was trying to get at before, it strikes me that if I broke a board, if I (falsely) claimed that it was already inherently broken but it now can't be tested either way because of my damage (that I also contest I didn't do and no one can prove), i'm surprised nothing more than my word would be enough.

It seems an odd way for the balance to initially fall.

[peterb]

does it say check with microscope before 1st use?

and all they need do is send to asus instead of making the choice not to.

No - and neither did I - I said that examination AFTER the event MIGHT throw more light on the facts.

Again my post has been diluted.
If anyone is actualy bothered to know, the VCC/VSS pins account for a good 70% of the total pins available, and the amount of current flowing through these pins is minimal.
If anyone wishes to check for quadrant the white paper can be read HERE page 38.

My apologies, if I gave the impression that I diluted your post, that wasn't my intention.

As for sparking- impossible, the voltage supplied on these pins is way to low to jump any possible gap (path of least resistance), nor is the current high enough to cause 'arcing' unless a condition could occur of very little contact of the remaining VCC pads.

Which is what I said, so I think we agree that sparking is not possible, and that arcing to the extent of causing damage or welding the pin to the contact is extremely unlikely.

Again, the board will WORK regardless of that deffective pin (it is just one of many that are VCC).

That MAY be the case - but unless and until it is tried it is impossible to say for certain

There is NO onus on the consumer to check for defects or lose any right to a remedy. That simply isn't the case.

Tht is true. although it would be a wise precaution and in this case would have helped prevent the situation we now have. Similarly had the OP photographed the board before it was returned it would have helped, although I doubt that many people in that situation would have done so.

And nobody can presume to know in advance how a court will see the situation, or how they will rule. For a start, this is because nobody knows in advance how facts and evidence will be presented, or how the situation will be assessed.

No, and I hope I didn't give that impression. We only have the details as they are presented here, which were what I based my comments on, and I am in agreement with Saracen's comments.

On the bais of good faith and good will, perhaps Scan might have offered to replace the board at a discounted price (say 50%) although since this has now gone public, it may be a little late for that as it could be seen as setting a precedent. However such a gesture could be be may without either party admitting liability and purely as an offer of goodwill.

The situation also highlights the value of something like Scansure, which (apart from the marketing of it, which has been discussed at length elsewhere) would appear to be useful in cases such as this - high value, delicate, items.

[Agent]

Is it definitely like that? As I was trying to get at before, it strikes me that if I broke a board, if I (falsely) claimed that it was already inherently broken but it now can't be tested either way because of my damage .....

And there is the problem - The OP is saying he didn't break it. Scan is saying he did.

Suggesting that he is falsely claiming is a bit harsh considering the lack of any evidence from either side here.

[divinemadness]

I'm not saying he is or isn't lying, just querying the legal situation as from what Saracen is saying, it seems to me you could feasibly break something and then lie and be in exactly the same position as the OP is, whether he is lying or being truthful. A board with physical damage that prevents testing yet no one can prove the origin of and the consumer claiming it was already broken in a different way anyway.

It seems odd to me that you could be in such a position by claiming something that is untestable due to ulterior damages that may be irrelevant, solely based on making the claim.

My post is not about the OP specifically so much as just outlining a hypothetical situation whereby it was lies, to see how the legal structure Saracen has outlined holds. Apologies if it comes across as an accusation, it was intended as nothing of the sort, hence the use of 'I' rather than 'he'.

[Saracen]

Is it definitely like that? As I was trying to get at before, it strikes me that if I broke a board, if I (falsely) claimed that it was already inherently broken but it now can't be tested either way because of my damage (that I also contest I didn't do and no one can prove), i'm surprised nothing more than my word would be enough.

It seems an odd way for the balance to initially fall.

Well, as for the presumption about the burden of proof, yup. It's in the Act ....

48A Introductory

1. This section applies if—
   
   
   
   1. the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
      
   2. the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
   
   
   
2. If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
   
   
   
   1. under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
      
   2. under and in accordance with section 48C below—
      
      
   3. 1. to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
         
      2. to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.
   
   
   
3. For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
   
   
4. Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
   
   
   
   1. it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
   2. its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

To break that down a bit, subsection 1) says that the remedies (in the following sections) apply if the buyer is a consumer and the goods have a fault at time of delivery (i.e. what I refer to as an "inherent" fault", and by inference, don't apply unless those are true.

Subsection 3) says that goods found to have a fault within 6 months "must be taken" to have been faulty at time of delivery, and so don't conform with contract.

Subsection 4) says that the 6 months rule in subsection 3) doesn't apply if it "is established" that the fault didn't exist at that time.

And the burden of proof being "balance of probability" is the standard requirement in civil courts, where the judge is an impartial arbitrator between two parties that disagree. It isn't a case of guilt or innocence, but of who, on balance, is most likely to be in the right, and to what extent.

It's different in criminal trials, where the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" (though it's not always put in those terms these days), but that's because the entire might of the state (police, large numbers of professional lawyers in the form of the CPS, etc) are deployed against what is often a lone individual. If, with all those resources, the state can't "prove beyond reasonable doubt" then it's unfair to convict and impose punishment.

Bear in mind that this 6 month business is relatively new,. Despite it being in the 1979 SoGA, it's only there by virtue of a relatively new amendment. And bear in mind that after 6 months, that burden of proof reverses and any faults are effectively presumed not to have been inherent, and therefore the supplier has no liability, unless the buyer can prove otherwise. And that is quite a burden to achieve.

You say it seems like a strange way for the balance to initially fall. I rather disagree. If a product fails within 6 months, I'd guess that statistically, it's befause there was a manufacturing fault. I'd further guess that the same would apply to the first month,maybe the first ten minutes of use, especially with electronic or electrical gear. That's probably ony not true if the buyer messed something up, but is it fair to assume, in the face of lots of initial manufacturing faults, that the buyer screwed up unless there's evidence to show that?

Whether you're talking about a manufacturer or a supplier, like scan, you're talking about a body with a far greater ability to shoulder problems than an individual consumer. Most inherent faults are going to show up fairly quickly, and 6 months seems like a reasonable time period. There will sill be onesthat take longer, like a faulty bearing on a washing machine motor. That may last a couple of years, but still be far less than it ought to in normal usage. And, after that 6 months, it's the consumer that's put on the spot to prove their case. It doesn't seem unreasonable that, for the first few months when the bulk of inherent faults are going to show up, the consumer gets the benefit of the doubt.

After all, whether it's before the first 6 months or not, if there's clear evidence as to whether the fault is inherent or not, the "presumption" won't come into play. The evidence will determine it. But if there isn't sufficient evidence to "establish" it one way or the other, then why should the supplier always bet the benefit of the presumption, and the consumer always have to prove otherwise? And that's how it used to be.

All this is why I said Scan may well be able to prove their case. If boards come in sealed and are shipped that way, then that eliminates one possible point of damage. But if they're opened to apply warranty stickers (as some items are), then that opens a possibility. However, they then point out that the sockets are protected by a plastic protector kept in place by a retaining clip that has to be explicitly removed before the damaged pin could be exposed. A judge might conclude that it's unlikely that that protector would have been removed, and that if it wasn't, damage didn't occur at Scan before shipping,

So .... what's the odds that damage occurred prior to the board getting to Scan? Well, returns rates might throw light on that, as may manufacturer's procedures. It might well, therefore, amount to it being possible, but unlikely, that damage occurred either at Scan or the maker, and that the most likely situation is that either the pin was bent by the buyer, or got damaged during inspection by Scan as part of the RMA. It'd then be for the judge to decide if, on balance of probability" they feel they can "establish" it one way or the other. And that's why I say it's impossible to be sure how it'll come out.

The above is just an illustration of the type of logic that may get employed and I'm not suggesting that;s how it'd go in an actual case. Merely that it's the type of process. And, in a small claims court, it;s a very informal process too. There's not going to be loads of lawyers lawyering, and there's not going to be loads of conflicting technical evidence from experts for each party. If there's expert evidence at all, it's be a single report from an impartial expert working for the court, not for either party. The whole thing is very informal, and the judge is really just a kind of mini-Solomon, trying to come up with what seems like the most equitable solution, given that there;s a minimum of fuss, evidence or testimony. It's really just a sort of agreed, and binding, arbitration.

[Agent]

My post is not about the OP specifically so much as just outlining a hypothetical situation whereby it was lies, to see how the legal structure Saracen has outlined holds. Apologies if it comes across as an accusation, it was intended as nothing of the sort, hence the use of 'I' rather than 'he'.

After rereading it I must admit it didn't - it was a reading error on my behalf. My apologies are needed here, not yours
It's very easy to get lost in a thread like this - more so when dinner is waiting on the table

The UK really does have one of the strongest customer focused set of laws that I know of. It wasn't too long back that I was looking to set up my own company (not a computer retailer however) and trying to follow them can be a nightmare.

[Saracen]

.....

No, and I hope I didn't give that impression.

You didn't give that impression to me. What I was referring to, specifically, was Ph4ZeD saying

This is the absolutely key fact which is why if you take it to the small claims court you will loose as any right minded person will come to the conclusion that you have damaged the board yourself.

I dispute the "will" lose, and "any" right-minded person.

I dispute "will" because it's far from unknown for courts to come up with rulings that, to me at least, seem perverse.

I dispute "any" because it presumptuous to think that everyone (reasonable) thinks like we do ourselves. For instance, I lay claim to being "right-minded", and I certainly didn't reach the conclusion that Tobias damaged it himself. I would reach the conclusion that it's quite possible he did, and it might even be quite likely he did. But even "quite likely" doesn't equate to "did". And all of those conclusions are before hearing any actual evidence.

Here's a hypoythetical situatin for a court case ....

Tobias said (in the OP)

I put the system together with a friend, slowly and carefully, taking care to avoid static. But from the beginning, things didn't seem quite right. Every time we added an extra piece of hardware, on power-up the diagnostics board would show an "FF" fault. Only clearing CMOS, and in some cases removing the lithium battery and waiting several minutes (a tip we got from the ASUS forum), would clear the fault and allow the system to post. We immediately contacted ASUS support about this. After several communications with them, we received the following message:

"Hmm, this is a weird issue.
If the problem still exists, please contact your reseller and let him check the motherboard for you. If it is due to the motherboard fault, the reseller will send it to us through distributor for RMA."

I have no idea what FF means, or when it would occur .... and neither, I suspect, would a judge.

Suppose (and it's hypothetical, remember) Asus were to provide a written statement of what that code means, and that it couldn't possibly happen with that processor pin bent, because the system wouldn't start at all if it was. If, repeat if that were to happen, it would throw a very different perspective on things, and may well lead to the conclusion that the damage to the pin was as a result either of Scan's inspection, or of Tobias removing the CPU, which he wouldn't have had to do were it not for the presence of another, pre-existing fault on the board.

And, perhaps, that pre-existing fault was as a result of static damage incurred when someone at Scan took the board out of it's static bag (if, indeed, they did) to apply a warranty sticker.

Or, similarly, suppose error FF typifies something likely to be static damage, and that that damaged pin is inoperative anyway, and Intel provided aa statement to the effect that that pin isn't connected. Then, we'd be facing static damage that could have been caused by Tobias, or could have been caused by Scan applying a sticker (if they did). In that case, with no way of knowing who did what, it may be that s.48A of the SoGA would be what decided the case.


So no, peter, you didn't give me that impression. It was that prediction of how a case would come out that was presumptuous. and when I said "nobody" could predict such things, I was really suggesting "including me", in case anyone thought I was doing so.