Refurbished Corsair USB stick RMA refused

[this_is_gav]

I bought a Corsair Voyager 16GB USB3 stick through Scan in February. Both Scan and Corsair show a 30-day warranty. The stick died last week, showing corrupted folders, followed by the drive wanting formatting, then not even being recognised.

Still, I submitted an RMA, as I felt a USB stick which has been used a handful of times over a little over 2 months should last a reasonable length of time, irrespective of whether it has been refurbished or not.

The RMA has been refused due to falling outside of the 30-day warranty. Is it reasonable to suggest that this device was unfit for use from the point of sale and as such I ought to be eligible for replacement?

[this_is_gav]

Do Corsair really not care?

Surely the sale of goods act applies here?

[Agent]

Do Corsair really not care?

Surely the sale of goods act applies here?

I went through this myself last year (not Corsair / Scan though). I can't jump into detail too much as I'm at work, but after speaking to Trading Standards and the CAB, they both made it very clear that the SOG applies, even on 'refurbished' goods and retailers can't use this as a way to give stupid / no warranty.

The big exception was that if specific faults were shown / known at the time of purchase. You don't really have much, if any claim against those.

Give your local TS a ring, it's normally enough to whip retailers into doing their job. In general, the "satisfactory quality and fit for purpose" clause is always in your side. If it's dead after 30 days and they won't budge, I'd just let TS deal with it.

[this_is_gav]

Thanks Agent, the reason I went straight to Corsair rather than Scan is that I'm worried I'd be getting another dodgy refurb from the same batch (they are still in stock), and I hope understandably I'd rather have a replacement which isn't going to fail in 2 months time.

It would be nice if I Corsair agent would post in here though, rather than just ignore it.

[Bluecube]

But you purchased it from Scan so your contract is with them. It's up to Scan to sort this out rather than Corsair.

[Ttaskmaster]

So you knew it was refurbished?
You knew it was only supported by a 30-day warranty?
I'm guessing you bought it despite knowing this, because it was cheaper than a new one?

My understanding is therefore that the item was fit for the purpose, as described by both the manufacturer and the retailers, ie guaranteed for 30 days. It is now outside those 30 days and whilst it has gone ****-up, it has lasted those 30 days.
The manufacturer said it would last at least 30 days. It has done so and is/was therefore fit for the purpose they described.

Your contract of sale, however, is with the retailer. Unless the retailer has described a purpose different to that of the manufacturer, the above applies equally. There is nothing else immediately springing to mind about the terms or conditions of sale that I think the retailer has breached.


TLR - Tough luck. You got what you paid for.
Get a new one. They're not that expensive and, to be honest, I can't see Trading Standards taking either Scan or Corsair to court and forcing them to refund/replace your item over a matter of less than £20!!

[Greybeard]

It would be nice if I Corsair agent would post in here though, rather than just ignore it.

Sorry to hear that you're having some problems with the USB.. and just to be clear on one thing, I didn't ignore your post, I just saw it right now.

Anyway, if you have submitted an RMA request to Corsair and got denied, its most likely because of this,
"Corsair offers a 30-day, replacement-only warranty for refurbished or factory reconditioned Memory, SSD and USB parts."
Corsair Warranty. Our customer service acted based on that policy, so I think they are just being fair and have simply followed the standard procedure.

You got your ticket #? post it or PM me and I will look into it.

[this_is_gav]

Many thanks for posting Greybeard.

Ticket number is 6458506.

And yes, as I've said, I know it's over the 30-day warranty, but again, I feel it is in no way acceptable that a part can fail in 60-odd days, refurbished or not - it was clearly faulty at the point of purchase.

[Agent]

You knew it was only supported by a 30-day warranty?

There is no such thing. The retailer can not define what is a "reasonable time" for the product to last, hence why you normally have 6 years to make a claim in the UK.
In the same way that a lot of retailers suggest that electronic goods have a "1 year" warranty, this "30 day" suggestion seems to be popping up more and more recently for refurbished goods.

If they reject your RMA - complain and explain that the SOG allows you to seek a replacement. It doesn't matter if they write "1 day, 30 days, 1 year" on their website - none of it can overwrite your statutory rights in the UK.

It's not unreasonable to expect refurbished goods to last less time, but if Corsairs goods are failing this quickly, that suggests it was incorrectly refurbished / inherently faulty.
The exception is where goods are pointed out to have a fault and you purchase them knowing this. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

Seriously, chase the retailer and post up the results. We need to fight this recent movement and make it clear they can't reject goods because of an arbitrary value they've placed on their website.

[Saracen]

I think it's worth pointing out the difference between "warranty" and Sale of Goods Act rights.

If Corsair, as manufacturer, offer a 30 day, or 90-day, or 10 year, warranty, then that's what they can be held to. And, at 30 days and a minute, it's out of warranty and any obligation ceases. How long they offer, though, is ENTIRELY up to them.

If Corsair sold directly to the consumer, they'd also have SoGA obligations, but as I read it, they didn't in this case. So, Corsair aren't liable.

With Scan, on the other hand, they can (on on most goods do) offer their own warranty, which they can also be held to, AND as a retailer selling to (presumably) a buyer that was a consumer (not a business) then the usual SoGA rights apply AS WELL, and the fact that the goods were second-hand, or reconditioned/refurbished DOES NOT get them out of that. It does change the situation a bit, though.

The buyer is still entitled to expect goods to last a "reasonable" period, and if they don't, AND if the reason they didn't was some inherent fault (I.e. not abuse, misuse or accidental or malicioys damage by the user) then they are not of "satisfactory" quality and they are liable.

BUT .... how long is "reasonable" is, first, not defined, and second, only determinable by a judge. It will, however, be "reasonable" in the light of all the circumstances of the sale. If goods are effectively new, but are, for instance, DSR returns that have been checked and repackaged and sold at not much below the price of new goods, then "reasonable" life would probably be much the same as new goods. If, on the other hand, they're simply repaired failed products sold a lot cheaper than new, then a judge is likely to regard "reasonable" as a fair bit less than new goods.

But it's for the judge to decide.

It seems to me that the best bet is to go back to Scan (not Corsair) and point out that, used or not, refurb or not, they ARE still covered by the SoGA and, never mind the warranty, they aren't compliant with SoGA standards. It's then a case of whether Scan agree or not and replace or partially refund, or not. And if not, whether it's worth taking small claims court action over it?

The usual rule is that if goods fail within 6 months, the fault will be assumed to be inherent, and so SoGA applies, unless the retailer can prove the fault was not inherent. After 6 months, the presumption switches and it will be assumed to not be inherent (so no SoGA protection) unless the consumer can prove the fault was inherent. Proving fault, in either case, against that presumption usually involves a 3rd party "expert" opinion.

Some small, or less reputable, companies do indeed try to avoid SoGA by the "out of warranty" line, but I'd be surprised if Scan, as a company, tried that. I would not, however, be at all surprised if an individual employee said that, simply through lack of understanding that, yes, the warranty has expired, but that does NOT negate statute law, like SoGA.

Personally, I'd go back to Scan and, calmly, reasonably and politely, point that out. If you get nowhere, refer it back to one of the managers, like Wesley. Whether they regard it as "reasonable" life is up to them, and I'd expect Scan managers to be reasonable, fair and realistic about that .... but it all depends on the exact details of sale.

Ultimately, if Scan refuse to repair or partially refund, and you still feel, gav, that it's unreasonable .... small claims court.

Personally, my view is that, given the cost, small claims court isn't worth the hassle for the money in this case. However, gav, if you consider the life of the product to be unreasonable, and it seems like it to me, it might be worth the hassle for the principle, not the money. I've done that a couple of times over the years, including once when a retailer said "out of warranty, go away" and ignored me when I pointed out what SoGA said. They did, however, settle immediately upon receiving court paperwork.

Based on the facts as portrayed above, I'd think it very likely you'd win a small claims court case if you took one BUT .... there's no guarantee. It's up to the judge on the day.

One thing I will say as general advice for small claims court. Do EVERYTHING reasonable to resolve it before going there. Give Scan ample opportunity, and if a phone call doesn't get you anywhere, do it in writing, and as a final pre-court step (if it got that far, which I doubt) give them one final opportunity and, say, 14 days to respond), and send it recorded. Don't turn down "reasonable" offers out of hand, either. Be prepared for a bit of give and take.

One thing SCC judges REALLY detest is people (or much worse, companies) wasting court time by being unreasonable or intransigent. So take every care to be reasonable. If both sides in this are, and if the facts are as presented, it should never get anywhere near threats of court, never mind an actual case.

[Saracen]

So you knew it was refurbished?
You knew it was only supported by a 30-day warranty?
I'm guessing you bought it despite knowing this, because it was cheaper than a new one?

My understanding is therefore that the item was fit for the purpose, as described by both the manufacturer and the retailers, ie guaranteed for 30 days. It is now outside those 30 days and whilst it has gone ****-up, it has lasted those 30 days.
The manufacturer said it would last at least 30 days. It has done so and is/was therefore fit for the purpose they described.

Your contract of sale, however, is with the retailer. Unless the retailer has described a purpose different to that of the manufacturer, the above applies equally. There is nothing else immediately springing to mind about the terms or conditions of sale that I think the retailer has breached.


TLR - Tough luck. You got what you paid for.
Get a new one. They're not that expensive and, to be honest, I can't see Trading Standards taking either Scan or Corsair to court and forcing them to refund/replace your item over a matter of less than £20!!

The length of warranty offered is not a yardstick by which to measure a Sale of Goods Act "reasonable" life. Price, compared to new, might be, and certainly would be a factor.

But Trading Standards don't take companies to court over individual breaches of contract like this. That is for the individual to do .... and pay for. Trading Standards are looking for patterns of misbehaviour. If they get numerous (probably 15-20, in a fairly small time frame) reports of trying to dodge legal duties (and breaking laws in the process) then they will generally warn and, if necessary and if warnings aren't heeded, prosecute. But they don't take individual civil cases to court on behalf of consumers.

It is, by the way, neither especially expensive nor difficult, or intimidating, to use small claims court. The "court" will be you, the other party (if they show up) and the judge (a bloke in a suit) sitting round a table, in an office. Forget wigs, robes, and lots of TV-esque "m'lud"s in front of the bench, court clerks, etc. It's a very simple, easy-going and informal process. And a simple case like this would probably be 30 minutes, or less. The last time I was in a small claims court, the other party didn't show, the judge read the papers quickly, had a cup of coffee, checked with his clerk if the other party had been in contact to explain lateness/non-arrival (they hadn't) and awarded against the non-showing party, including costs .... all in 10 minutes or so. One moral of that story .... don't be late. You may find it done and dusted by the time you roll in. And, informal setting aside, it IS a court.

[this_is_gav]

Seriously, chase the retailer and post up the results. We need to fight this recent movement and make it clear they can't reject goods because of an arbitrary value they've placed on their website.

Ordinarily I wouldn't hesitate to take it up with Scan (who have always been great with the few RMAs I've had in the distant past), and while it would be easy to write it off as a £22 mistake (the cost of the refurb and the purchase of a new replacement stick), in the end I still want a decent working USB stick, and as I said in the first post, I'd be worried that the stock mine came from would all fail in a few months.

Sadly, I've not got a good history with Voyager sticks. I had an old USB2 one (8GB perhaps) which split in 2 pulling it out of the socket about 8 months after I bought it (looked like some poor soldering, but the drive still worked if you squeezed the rubber together!). I assumed that was a one-off given Corsair's good reputation, hence this purchase.

[Ttaskmaster]

There is no such thing. The retailer can not define what is a "reasonable time" for the product to last, hence why you normally have 6 years to make a claim in the UK.

But if the retailer offers the same warranty as the manufacturer, that *is* considered reasonable. You rarely get a retailer offering a longer warranty, of course... unless you pay for it, but that's usually a con.

Basically, the manufacturer is considered better placed to state how long the product should last, the purpose(s) to which it is suited, etc, as they made the bloody thing.

The length of warranty offered is not a yardstick by which to measure a Sale of Goods Act "reasonable" life.

The manufacturer's warranty is, as discussed above.
This advice is direct from a Trading Standards Enforcement Officer, by the way. I am quite fortunate in my choice of friends!
There is far more to it than that, though and the manufacturer's warranty, determination of purpose and fitness for such can be refuted depending on the type of product and comparable products from similar manufacturers.

[Agent]

But if the retailer offers the same warranty as the manufacturer, that *is* considered reasonable. You rarely get a retailer offering a longer warranty, of course... unless you pay for it, but that's usually a con.

Manufacturer warranty has *nothing* to do with the SOG, and what warranty the manufacturer offers to the retailer is of no interest to the end user. If that manufacturer gives the retailer 30 days warranty....that's nice, but it means nothing in regards to the end user making a claim under the SOG.

Basically, the manufacturer is considered better placed to state how long the product should last, the purpose(s) to which it is suited, etc, as they made the bloody thing.

Again, irrelevant. What the manufacturer quotes (which is normally in their interest), has no influence on the ability for a claim under the SOG.

This advice is direct from a Trading Standards Enforcement Officer, by the way. I am quite fortunate in my choice of friends!

And as someone who has taken retailers to court over these exact issues, I can tell you that it doesn't matter how long you're told a product is in "warranty" for - refurbished or not. Your rights under the SOG can't be denied and people should make sure they are enforced. I'd be extremely surprised if a court was to rule that 30 days is an acceptable amount of time for a electronic product to last, certainly with no moving parts.

[Mark@SCAN]

Just wanted to chime in on this, I assume we are talking about THIS USB stick?

If so the current selling price is £6.73, without knowing your invoice number and exact date of purchase I cannot be sure exactly the price you paid at the time of purchase but I would suggest it's not much different.

If you divide the price by the 30 day warranty supplied, £6.73 / 30 days it works out @ 22.5p a day, obviously if you've had twice that then it's cost just over 11p a day in the time you have had it.

Would this be considered reasonable? that is open to debate but I thought I would put it out there.

Obviously if you wish to raise the issue with SCAN please post your invoice number in the aftersales thread and we'll look into the details of your purchase.

Regards

[Ttaskmaster]

Manufacturer warranty has *nothing* to do with the SOG, and what warranty the manufacturer offers to the retailer is of no interest to the end user.

Unless used as one measure for determining fitness for purpose.
Under the Sale of Goods Act, goods must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. So if a manufacturer says a cooling block will definitely fit your GPU and it provably doesn't, then it's not fit for purpose.
Similarly, if they say something will last fault-free for X time and it does, then it is.
This is also why my TS friend annualy checks that a certain chainsaw manufacturer fits their products with a sticker that reads, "WARNING: Do NOT attempt to stop saw blade with fingers or genitals"... Because someone sued them (and somehow won) over the 'fitness for purpose'. How they managed to win is still an anecdote I hear recanted by my friend, but that's a whole different topic.

So, anyway... If the retailer repeats/reuses/adopts that description/purpose, as many often do for the sake of simplicity, then it is applied as a measure just the same. This is exactly how investigating TSOs (and members of the public, incidentally), who may know absolutely nothing of the product itself, can still ascertain suitability for purpose... although TS usually go the other route of seeing under what description the retailer sold it as and then checking with the manufacturer, as it is the trading party on the line.

To get a refund on a faulty item under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, you need to reject it and return it within a reasonable time after purchase - usually three to four weeks, which is where the typical 30-Day warranty comes from. If the time limit has expired on the warranty, you *cannot* make such a claim.

However, the Act says that if you can show that the goods were not of satisfactory quality *at the time of sale* then you may have a claim against the trader under the Act.


Now, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that goods should be:

Of satisfactory quality - ie, they should meet a standard which a reasonable person would regard as being satisfactory, taking account of any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. Satisfactory quality also includes the state and condition of the goods, their fitness for the purpose for which they were supplied, appearance and finish, their safety and durability and whether they are free from minor defects.
Public statements made by the trader, manufacturer or their representative relating to specific characteristics of the goods, particularly in advertising or on labelling must be accurate and are a factor in determining whether goods are of satisfactory quality.

So - A refurbished Corsair Voyager 16GB USB3.0 flash drive with write speed of 21MB/s and read speed of 79MB/s that is free from defects in material and workmanship for the specified period of 30 days, commencing on the date of purchase, for about 50% the price of a brand new one.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me and the item has already lasted much longer than other comparable items (all Corsair flash drives, interestingly enough) that I have bought brand spanking new!


Fit for the purpose made known to the trader - Goods must be fit for their general purpose and any particular purpose that a consumer makes known to the trader at the time of purchase. For example, if you buy a sleeping bag it must work as a sleeping bag. If you make it clear before you buy it that you need it for -40 degree conditions and the trader states it will be suitable then it should be suitable.

So - A refurbished unit that will operate in accordance with published technical specifications, as specified by its datasheet, and in the operating environment for which it was intended, that remains free from defects in material and workmanship for the length of the warranty period: 30 days commencing on the date of purchase, since the consumer did not specify otherwise.
This condition has been met.


As described - Goods should correspond with any description applied to them.

So - A refurbished unit that will operate in accordance with published technical specifications, as specified by its datasheet, and in the operating environment for which it was intended, that remains free from defects in material and workmanship for the length of the warranty period: 30 days commencing on the date of purchase, since the consumer did not specify otherwise.
This condition has also been met.


Based on all that and the fact that the price & warranty are low (supposedly for a good reason), I'd say the goods satisfied every descriptor and there is no claim.



You have a right to get faulty goods replaced or repaired if it's too late to reject them. You can ask the retailer to do either, but they can normally choose to do whatever would be cheapest.
However, 'faulty' seems defined as 'present at the time of receipt'. It may come down to being a defect that developed within a reasonable period following receipt, but then you're arguing warranties and how long the manufacturer/retailer expects/designs/intends the product for anyway.

And as someone who has taken retailers to court over these exact issues, I can tell you that it doesn't matter how long you're told a product is in "warranty" for - refurbished or not.

First thing I was asked when I phoned my friend up to chat about it was, "Refurbished? What's the manufacturer's warranty on it?".
I assume someone who does this for a living and holds a Diploma in Consumer Affairs asked this for a very good reason... or do you know better?

I'd be extremely surprised if a court was to rule that 30 days is an acceptable amount of time for a electronic product to last, certainly with no moving parts.

It all depends on how long one can reasonably expect a refurbed unit to last. Based on how short the warranty is, how vehemently people have recommended I steer clear of refurbs and how short-lived the brand new versions I experienced were - I'd have guessed these things don't last that long.