Arbitration and no sue clauses on packaging and seals. SCUM K HYNIX - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2024, 08:43:10 pm
content: I brought this on Amazon looking for an NVME .2 that will give off less heat for a laptop:https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08DKB5LWYNothing on the page about an arbitration clause.When it arrived just as I was about to break the seal and I notice this:Quotehttps://ssd.skhynix.com/terms-conditions/QuoteNow when I buy things on Amazon I don't expect this especially if it is not printed on the page about an arbitration/no sue policy.I could understand if it in relation to liability over data loss but why would I want to sue the manufacturer? Unless the product has a safety defect with it where it could overheat and set fire and this is why I am concerned.I haven't broken the seal yet but I don't trust it.What do you think.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2024, 09:09:53 pm
content: It depends on your specific jurisdiction if such arbitration clauses have any effect or if they are even completely invalid. A quick search for the UK results inhttps://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/reports/inside-arbitration/click-to-agree-technology-and-consumer-arbitration,saying that for B2C contracts compulsory arbitration is deemed automatically unfair and unenforceable when the claim is <= £5,000.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2024, 09:58:56 pm
content: Forced arbitration is bullshit. Arbitrators know who pays for their services - big business - so they rarely rock the boat as long as they can at least somewhat justify their decision.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 12:05:55 am
content: If it is for data loss and you have no backup then I could understand but it says "damage".For anything else and I think something else maybe wrong that they know it and are not declaring it and that clause is a sign.QuoteSo if the drive overheats and catches fire or damaged my laptop electrically due a fault and negligence on their part they are basically doing what they like and calling the user as I said before, "do they think users are stupid and are they effectively calling them stupid?"I feel I certainly am if I break that seal.I am pretty annoyed this was not disclosed on Amazon and I would have never brought it.Do you think I should send it back?I am pretty tempted to do so and make a complaint.Just arranged for a return. Can't tolerate being treated like sh*t but in this case in advance by the manufacturer signing away my rights where they can do what they like and accept no liability. That kind of insulting crap should not exist in the marketplace especially on Amazon or am I missing something and none of their description or pictures show this clause so I am pretty ANNOYED at these TIME WASTERS.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 12:12:15 am
content: AFAIK these T&C are null&void in the EU. But I don't know how things are looking in the UK post-Brexit where it comes to this kind of BS.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 12:36:01 am
content: They can shove it. I just arranged a return.A consumer rights restricting, forced arbitration, no sue policy applied and slapped on the seal/packaging AFTER I brought and paid for it that is NOT a part of or as described anywhere in the listing nor the pictures is not what I brought according to listing.Clauses should be in the listing if it is on the packaging.I am going to make a complaint to Amazon.Hynix GOLD slogan:QuoteGoldmine for them to sell crap like this withforgedarbitration clauseson the customers AFTER they purchase it could possible bypass the laws and consumer rights.If they have confidence in their product then they may not need to sneak clauses on it so as far as I am concerned it is a piece of sh*t.I am starting to think, is this a form is mis selling.My consumer rights brought with the product is null and void (according to SK Hynix) once I open it but not described in the listing therefore it was misdold.

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 01:21:04 am
content: So, DON'T BREAK THE SEAL. CUT AROUND IT AND KEEP THE UNBROKEN SEAL in your files along with the papers associated with the purchase. Photograph yourself doing this. Have a witness present. Both you and the witness should date and sign the unbroken seal.Then, if there is a problem I would bet that a good lawyer would find a way to sue them. After all, you did not break the seal.PS: I once invalidated a rental lease for an apartment simply by following the procedure clearly written in that lease; word for word, sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph. And I saved all the paperwork as the process proceeded. The lease was written from the point of view of evicting a tenant who was not paying the monthly rent. I simply stopped paying and the eviction process was followed perfectly by the management company and myself. I had written proof of every step. At the end, the lease itself declared that it was VOID.I did not defraud the landlord for a single penny. They had a new tenant in the apartment BEFORE the payment I had made for the last month's rent and my deposit had run out. I took photographic proof of that. And I had left the apartment in better condition than when I entered so that deposit should have been returned. I told them to keep it for the last month's rent. If anything they owed me a refund for a week or two of that rent but, of course, that was not forthcoming.I had fun corresponding with their lawyer for six or eight months. Must have cost the landlord a small fortune. I answered every one of his letters with FACTS. He finally gave up.PPS: From things that the management company said, I believe it was their intention to defraud me by keeping the deposit I had made (one full month's rent) by claiming that there was damage to the apartment. This avoided that.My point is, READ the legal language carefully. It may be more in your favor than you or THEY might think.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 01:33:50 am
content: Whilst I'm not a lawyer, I'd suggest that some of those terms would be considered illegal and unenforceable in Australia.For example, the law here says that you cannot "sign or agree away" your consumer rights that are written into legislation, which would include restricting your ability to take a company to court.But as is the case with a lot of terms and conditions; they aren't worth the paper they are written on until contested.Australian consumer law applies to all companies who conduct business or sell their products in Australia, even if they are based overseas.

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 01:40:04 am
content: One more thing. When buying on the internet ALWAYS use a credit card. Not a debit card, but a credit card. In the US, at least, but likely in many other countries credit card purchases have a lot more protection than any other way of paying for something. I have been able to recover a year of monthly payments billed by an internet company that went belly up. I don't know if the bank that issued my card ate the $ $ $ or if they reversed the payments to that defunct company, but I got every penny back.A debit card works differently. It is more like handing cash or a valid check to the seller. Much harder to reverse.If you are defrauded in any purchase made with a credit card, you simply should make the issuing bank aware within 30 days and they take over. Oh, and this is one way to induce PayPal to keep things honest. If they don't issue the refund then the cc bank WILL. But if the purchase was funded via your bank account that you registered with PayPal, then once the money is transferred, it is a LOT harder to get back. There is an option to fund any PayPal purchase with a credit card, just look for it in the checkout.Oh, and credit cards have a bonus; I get a 1.5% discount on every purchase and that includes tax and shipping. I receive at least $500 back, IN CASH, every year from my credit card purchases. I don't know about you, but I can certainly use that money - and I do use it. Some credit cards are even giving 2% back now. I can't get even 0.5% interest on a savings account.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 01:44:53 am
content: Quote from: EPAIII on September 29, 2024, 01:40:04 amReally good advice. In Australia, banks are a bit more forgiving on debit cards. I've successfully disputed transactions previously and the bank reversed the charge on my debit card within days. However these days, I use Amex for just about everything. They've got some pretty strong policies for covering or refunding purchases within 90 days. Some Amex cards also come with added insurances to cover some products after the manufacturer's warranty expires.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 05:02:37 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2024, 12:12:15 amAmazon reviews:Quotehttps://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03077981/officersQuoteThey are in the EU and this country so their clauses could apply.Absolute SCUMBAGS! who decided this.Maybe I'll see if I can contact trading standards and see what they have to say about this.QuoteQuoteQuoteSounds all good and well for over 3247 ratings with 97% (5+4+3 star) ratings but when something goes wrong can I trust the warranty and that clause.It is a real shame because that would have been ideal reading about it doesn't give out much heat for a laptop but I can't accept it on those terms unless it is all to do with data loss.It was for a Lenovo T490 where one is in there (a Toshiba 256gb that doesn't seem to get too hot) and the thermal pad is underneath. I see under it is white coloured on the pcb for the heat dissipation. I don't want to put something in there that is going to get very hot and cause the motherboard to overheat.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 09:27:08 am
content: Vote with your wallet. Buy another SSD.Compulsory arbitration is illegal in the UK for claims under £5k anyway. You can opt into it if they suggest, but that's at your discretion.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 01:59:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 29, 2024, 09:27:08 amJust sent Louis Rossman and email last night with the pictures to see what he has to say as I think he might be interested.I am very annoyed having to waste my time and effort buying it, preparing to use it and a big slap in the face (the no sue clause) all to send it backImagine walking into a shop and buying this product which is appears as a dummy on the shelves with the real item sold behind the counter. After paying for it at the till and they slap a extra terms and conditions/waiver, warranty limiting no sue clauses and liability seal on it for if it goes wrong in (contrary to consumer rights and selling laws) and then hand it to you now wouldn't that be misselling?If it had it on the dummy or explained before buying it then I wouldn't buy it.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 02:32:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2024, 12:12:15 amDefinitely so, between businesses ("traders") and consumers.Anyone can determine the same for themselves starting atcommission.europa.eu/consumer-contract-law.TheContracts with consumerspage at Your Europe is maintained by Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs and is an official website of the European Union, and is intended to explain all this in non-legalese to consumers and traders.Simply put, for a consumer contract to be valid, the full terms and conditions must be clear, understandable, and available when the contract is entered into.Terms or conditions available only after the purchase/contract ("hidden terms") are not binding to the customer (so they don't even invalidate the contract, they are simply ignored). Any ambiguities will be ruled in the customer's favour.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 02:48:07 pm
content: A quick web search indicates that the UK law is very similar, with for exampleCompactLawand theFinancial Conduct Authoritylisting these "hidden terms" as unfair and not binding to the consumer at all.It would be interesting to contact FCA with an image of the received product and extra terms and conditions not available nor revealed at the time of the purchase, and refer to SK Hynix UK Ltd. (03077981) with a link to the Amazon page where consumers complain about no refunds, and to the original sales page.Unless consumers complain, the likes of FCA cannot pressure the vendors, and the vendors keep behaving this way. With a good, reasonable complaint, a single contact from FCA could change things. (It is unlikely, but possible SK Hynix relies on "all Western countries have laws similar to USA" beliefs, so this could be ignorance rather than malice – say, using the exact same packaging for all Western markets, and just not realizing the implications. Of course, both UK and EU are impacted by this in similar manner.)

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 05:26:03 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on September 29, 2024, 01:59:53 pmNot sure what you expect him to say? That he hates it - but that in the US this is legal?He is in an entirely different jurisdiction and in the US forced arbitration clauses for B2C transactions, service providers, etc. are very common - as are uber expensive (for the companies defending against them) class action lawsuits. Which is exactly what these forced arbitration/no sue clauses are intended to prevent. I suspect the sticker is specifically designed for the US market and the seller didn't bother to replace it for the UK/EU markets where this stuff is unenforceable.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 05:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on September 29, 2024, 05:26:03 pmExactly.UK FCA, however, might be interested.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 06:20:34 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on September 29, 2024, 05:26:03 pmActually I have noticed that US companies are more and more using the arbritation courts to avoid hefty legal fees. These arbritation courts seem to be based on the French legal system (which operates based on what is reasonable) instead of the antiquated British legal system. I don't think this is a bad move.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 08:19:02 pm
content: Arbitration courts have zero to do with the French legal system.It is literally just a an arbitrator that you present your case to and they decide. There are no prosecutors, no advocates, no automatic right to appeal and the general rules of the game are very different from regular courts - often set by an agreement of the parties. Among them the pick of the arbitrators - often paid/chosen by the companies themselves.Imagine how it would work if you would get to pick and pay a sympathetic judge in your court case! Yet that is exactly what happens with arbitration.Arbitration is originally intended for an out-of-court (thus faster and cheaper) dispute settlements between businesses, where both sides first agree on the venue, choice of arbitrators, rules for the proceedings, etc. And now it is being abused also for consumer cases - where the consumer most often doesn't get any choice at all.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 08:22:57 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 29, 2024, 01:44:53 amI strongly agree with EPAIII. Some banks have apolicyto reverse charges if a transaction is disputed but with a credit card that is guaranteed under Federal law in the US. So I will take that protection vs what the bank'spolicyis, any day of the week!Among over reasons, banks have a habit ofunilaterallychanging their policies without the knowledge or the consent of the customers so what their policy allow one day could very well be null and void the next day.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 08:39:02 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2024, 06:20:34 pmAt first, it doesn't sounds like a bad idea, but the reality is that the arbitration courts are always strongly rigged to favor the companies and that's why the companies mandate their use. Among other things, the arbitration courts are always located in a state and jurisdiction where the laws favor the company so the company usually automatically wins. But also the court is usually located in the wrong part of the country for most consumers to be able to travel there and stay there long enough to pursue any kind of legal action. For example, E-bay's pet court in located in California and I'm in Florida and that's 3200 miles from me. And given the way that lawyers are allowed to drag out court cases, someone may have to stay local to the court for years on end in order to pursue a case.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 08:41:39 pm
content: One even more problematic clause is preventing any kind of class action.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 08:42:52 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2024, 06:20:34 pmIt's not. Arbitration often costs them more because they have to pay the arbitration fees as well as whoever they hire to present their case to the arbiter.The biggest reason companies have arbitration clause is to avoid class action lawsuits. The intent is that arbitration will be too annoying and difficult for most people to follow through with for small claims, and the arbitration clasue doesn't allow them to class together.The secondary reason is to avoid large damage awards The terms and conditions often limit the liability to a small value such as the amount paid rather than acual damages (I.e., our product exploded and sent you to the hospital, here is your money back). An arbiter will usually follow those rules, but a jury trial can always award actual damages and sometimes also punitive damages.Stream recently dropped their mandatory arbitration clause precisely because it was too expensive. People were submitting arbitration claims for slightly less than the arbitration fee and it was costing them a lot of money. A few other companies have gone the same route.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2024, 10:13:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2024, 06:20:34 pmArbitration is generally bad for the consumer because arbitrators are paid by corporations. Whilst in some instances of egregious acts by corporations they may side with consumers, they definitely have a significant bias towards the corporation. After all, they can be substituted for any other arbitration firm if they do not keep their client happy. Arbitration cases are also completely private, so it's impossible to build a picture of the results from these cases, and there's no right to appeal any arbitration result.A fairer solution is something like a tribunal system, who decide on the balance of facts. In these tribunal affairs, lawyers are typically not required (the courts are specifically tailored to people who self-represent.) In fact that's even the case in small claims courts here, the judges for those cases know that people are typically self-representing and therefore will be a little more forgiving for people who have a structurally sound case but not necessarily a legally perfect one.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 02:26:42 pm
content: Officlal response from SK Hynix Amazon:QuoteQuoteI am confused by this message. Are they tryIng to FOB me off?The policy is in place for the EU and the UK but don't worry you have a warranty and customer service.Pull the wool over my eyes.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 02:37:01 pm
content: I'd reply with"No, I am referring to the post-purchase ARBITRATION CLAUSE and LICENSE AGREEMENT that the sticker on the product claims to bind me to. As these were not divulged at the time of the purchase, by UK and EU law they are unfair contract terms, and thus not binding on the consumer. (For details, seehttps://www.fca.org.uk/firms/unfair-contract-terms/examples-unfair-termsandhttps://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm.) I am fairly disgusted by not having been informed of these terms openly up front at the time of purchase, as would be fair and standard practice in EU and UK, and am considering reporting this as unfair contract practice by SK Hynix to the UK Financial Conduct Authority."

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 02:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on September 29, 2024, 01:59:53 pmSend it to Linus Sebastian as well. He loves stuff like that and PC parts are very much his wheelhouse.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 03:35:41 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on October 04, 2024, 02:37:01 pmThey could argue that the UK are not in the EU anymore.Sorry I don't believe I might have been clear.Rephrase: Just spoke to the FCA. They are not interested so they gave me a number to Trading Standards,I phonedthemthis number and then we had an argument.With this lady who picked up on what was suppose to be the the "Trading Standards" and really found out later it was the "Citizens Advice Bureau". She didn't sound willing from the sound of her tone. I explained what happened and said the listing did not mention anything about a consumer rights restricting, arbitration/no sue policy on the seal where they are not liable for damages and so on.The lady said she needed to "talk to her manager" and came back and basically said it was okay they are mentioning their terms and conditions. I put it another way if it was sold behind the counter, "because it is online and not a high street shop" it's alright.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 04:01:50 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on October 04, 2024, 03:35:41 pmVery few adverts and "offers to treat" contain all the information in the manual. That's understandable.If selling to a consumer and not in a shop, then the distance selling regulations are relevant. Hence "because it is online" is bullshit.Provided it is within the prescribed timescale, you can return it and they must refund the monies. They are, of course, entitled not to do business with you in the future.I'd also leave a review on as many review pages as possible, and ask pointed questions on MSE forums.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 04:03:27 pm
content: I love how one of the first, most prominent items in the footer sectionFCA's websiteis not "About us", but rather "Complain about us".

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 04:07:22 pm
content: I phoned them up again...This time a gentleman picked up the phone and he opened a case asking for my details sounding a lot more professional and willing.Apparently it was not the Trading Standards it was the Citizen Advice Bureau. He said something about Trading Standards nott taking calls anymore from the public, they do and then they report them to Trading Standards if they think they might be interested.After explaining the issue and he said "is this a consumer rights restrictions", I said yes... He said that should not be on there and he will report it to trading standards but he don't know if they will take it up or not and they may contact me for more information.I did apologize for my behaviour about the previous agent, I was absolutely infuriated at the time... (the unwillingness to do anything, brushing and fobbing off attitude), he asked for her name which I don't have and should have asked her at beginning explaining if you listened to the call she didn't want to do anything and relied on a manager on this advice she insisted on that it was alright, and the shop analogy because it was online not a shop etc it was alright... He said to me not to worry.I'll prepare an email follow up to Louis Rossman and Linus Sebastian later. I am just agitated at the moment on what should have been a simple report on the phone after spending about an hour and some lazy/ignorant agent to start with.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2024, 10:40:40 pm
content: Just noticed this.https://linustechtips.com/topic/1248061-contact-linus-tech-tips/QuoteI did send but likely neither of them may get it.Looks like I will have to make account on their board and make awareness there.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2024, 02:06:10 pm
content: Trying to contact both of them is looking like a dead end or maybe they are not interested.A reply to my latest question and they seem slow to respond:QuoteQuoteAre deliberately to cause confusion to blend it in with the warranty.Maybe I'll try this one next and see what excuse they come out with:Quote from: Nominal Animal on October 04, 2024, 02:37:01 pm

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2024, 04:15:40 am
content: Responded with:Quote from: Nominal Animal on October 04, 2024, 02:37:01 pmThank you Nominal AnimalAnd just got a response that sounds to me like they know truey well that they are up in trying fob me off in trying to to bypass as much consumer.QuoteLimitations? There is PLENTY OF SPACE they could put this. In fact there is a "Legal Disclaimer" they could have put it thereIt currently says:Quote*I bet "the certain limitations" is that they are not allowed to do it due to consumer law and check out that the high horse above the law attitude.Maybe I should give Amazon a call now that it is possible they know they could be even breaking their own terms and conditions with Amazon."Well if you don't like it send it back" NO! That is NOT what I ordered it with and I know from a certain trade in the past where they refer to builders who think they can do things they have no experience or training as "chancers" when they mess up.That is what they are doing here, chancing those who would accept the clauses.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2024, 05:43:32 am
content: "The first thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.".Dick the Butcher in William Shakespeare'sHenry VI, Part II, 1596 and 1599Jon

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2024, 04:30:20 pm
content: Here is my reply.QuoteIf they know they are not allowed to declare this binding arbitration consumer rights limiting policy (once the seal is broke) on the Amazon listing as they admitted above why do they think it is acceptable to list it on the seal and a URL after the sale.Attitude: "We give your money back after 30 days, records show you got it back etc what more do you want?"No it is to do with their dishonest liberty taking shoddy trading practices that they know they are not allowed display on Amazon.I am very disappointed, angry in fact. I just contacted Amazon by phone and reported the issue. The only way I find I can contact them is the accessibility line.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2024, 03:10:35 am
content: Thanks to Nominal Animal for helping I found where to report on the FCA website for reporting unfair terms and contracts and now a form to contact using the "Non product enquiry" (non match), email, phone and with pictures too.https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unfair-contractsAsk us as a question of report a scam:https://www.fca.org.uk/contactSo we will see what that does.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2024, 03:32:37 pm
content: Underlined and star to what I think maybe applicable in this case.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c7f43ed915d48c241023b/oft311.pdfOffice of fair trading: Unfair contract terms guidanceGuidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999 September 2008Exclusion and limitation clauses in general1.1Terms which serve to exclude or limit liability (also known as disclaimers,or exemption clauses) take many different forms. Detailed comments onparticular types of disclaimer which may be unfair can be found insubsections 2(a) to 2(h) below. But some comments can be made whichapply to all of them1.5Other arguments, such as those below, cannot be used to justify an over-extensive disclaimer.•That it is intended only to deal with unjustified demands.If a disclaimercould be used to defeat legitimate claims it is likely to be unfair.TheRegulations are concerned with the effect terms can have, not justwith the intentions behind them. If the potential effect of a term goesfurther than is intended, it may be possible to make it fair by cuttingback its scope (see Annexe A for examples showing how this can bedone).•That it does not actually operate by excluding liability. If a termachieves the same effect as an unfair exemption clause, it will be unfairwhatever its form or mechanism. This applies, for example, to termswhich 'deem' things to be the case, or get consumers to declare thatUnfair contract terms guidance15they are – whether they really are or not – with the aim of ensuring noliability arises in the first place.•That there is a statement which says 'the customer's statutory rightsare not affected'.An unfair disclaimer is not made acceptable by beingpartially contradicted by an unexplained legal technicalitywhose effectonly a lawyer is likely to understand. See below Part IV on the plainand intelligible language requirement, and particularly paragraph 19.5.1.10No contract term can legally have the effect of excluding liability for deathor injury caused by negligence in the course of business, and such termsshould not appear in consumer contracts. 3 As well as being unfair, theiruse is liable to be misleading, and therefore may give rise to action as anunfair commercial practice, which can in certain circumstances involveprosecution (see above, page 10).General disclaimers, for example saying that customers use equipment orpremises 'at their own risk', cover liability for death or personal injury eventhough the main concern of the supplier may be something else. It might,for example, be intended to stop consumers trying to sue for loss of ordamage to their clothes or other property which is really the result of theirown carelessness. But the fact that the intention behind a term is morelimited than its potential effects does not make it fair.1.1.2Disclaimers of this kind, like other exemption clauses, may be acceptable ifthey are qualified so that liability for loss or harm is not excluded orrestricted where the supplier is at fault, or is disclaimed only wheresomeone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – is to blame.Group 2(a): Exclusion of liability for faulty or misdescribed goods2.1.2As well as potentially being unfair under the Regulations, the use of suchdisclaimers is liable to mislead consumers about their statutory rights. Assuch, it can give rise to enforcement action as an unfair commercialpractice (see above, page 11).* 2.8.6Any guarantee which gives consumers substantially less protection thantheir ordinary rights is unlikely to be made fair merely by addition of aqualifying statement of any kind.In the OFT's view, such a guaranteeshould be discontinued altogether, or its terms should be brought into linewith the consumer's legal rights.Group 9: Binding consumers to hidden terms 25 – paragraph 1(i)of Schedule 2Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if theyhave the object or effect of:(i)* irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had noreal opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion ofthe contract.9.1* Terms which have the effect of making consumers agree to acceptobligations of which they can have no knowledge at the time of contractingare open to serious objection. It is a fundamental requirement of contractualfairness that consumers should always have an opportunity to read andunderstand terms before becoming bound by them (see Part IV).9.2* It is not 'hidden terms' themselves that are indicated to be unfair, but anyterm which binds the consumer to accept or comply with them – or, inlegal jargon, 'incorporates' them 'by reference'. However, terms of whoseexistence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time ofentering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in anycase, especially if they are onerous in character.Group 11: Right to change what is supplied – paragraph 1(k) ofSchedule 2Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if theyhave the object or effect of:(k)enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a validreason any characteristics of the product or service to beprovided.11.1The OFT's objections to variation clauses generally are set out under Group10.** A variation clause of the particular kind described in the wording aboveallows a supplier to substitute something different for what he has actuallyagreed to supply.This conflicts with the consumer's legal right to receivesomething that is in all significant respects what he or she agreed to buy,not merely something similar or equivalent.11.2Consumers are legally entitled to expect satisfactory quality in goods andservices, but that does not mean it is fair to reserve the right to supplysomething that is not what was agreedbut is of equivalent standard orvalue. Terms should respect both the right to receive products that are asdescribed and the right to satisfactory quality, not one or the other.**There is already a legal disclaimer in their Amazon listing :QuoteSo that maybe that could in addition be considered a variation clause and it is not fair that they have substituted different terms outside the listing.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2024, 04:22:10 pm
content: You can forget about the FCA they are not fit for anything.Quote from: ebastler on October 04, 2024, 04:03:27 pmIt seems that they are already being complained about:https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/victims-to-stage-protest-outside-fcas-headquarters/Quote*So in other words it is useless, like with Action Fraud where I hear it is used as a dumping ground, the FCA use loopholes to get out of doing things.**One of their own employers up against them in court doesn't sound very good.No wonder why they wern't interested over the phone and hard to speak to someone with flow diagram choices that either "give the so and so more time to respond" and then cut me off or that repeated with other options with if I remember in addition "You can report online.".

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2024, 11:42:44 pm
content: I think they get the message now:My latest response:QuoteI was actually scared into finding another bullet dodging excuse from them but they seem to have got the message this time maybe?Quote*Yes remove the stuff off the seal.I might have accepted on the slimmest chance "You agree not sue us for data loss but anything else, no manufacturer can guarantee it etc" and even that could set a message of it not looking good in terms of reliability of they feel the need to put it on the seals.Much better answer than the fob offs over using the warranty as a cover and now I can rest.Well I hope they get investigated by the three places I reported them to, the Trading Standards, FCA and Amazon and order them to put a stop to that nonsense but I am convinced all three may turn out to be just as useless as Acton Fraud.I also found another department that I might report it to as they assumed part of the Office of Fair Trading as it was dissolved in 2014. The CMA (Competition and Markets Authority)https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-and-consumer-laws-for-businesshttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a759a6ced915d506ee80176/oft911.pdfIncluded below what seems applicable to me to what they maybe in breach of:QuoteThanks again to NominalAnimal for pointing me in the right direction about unfair trading practices and I learn't a few things on the way about how The Office of Fair Trading got broken up into little pieces.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2024, 05:57:10 am
content: Happy to help! 😊Such weasel-wording post-purchase "contract terms" just make me angry. Especially so for memory sticks, consideringKingston's limited lifetime warranty.Of coursethere are limitations, and of course anyone purchasing such memory sticks should read what it actually means:lifetimein particular is the expected lifetime of memory sticks, not human lifetime. While it is still legalese, it's darn sight better than what SK Hynix tries to swing with their "hey, by the way here are the terms and limitations you agreed to when you purchased this product" trickery.Licenses and contracts aren't that hard; they can be doneright. All you need to do is reign in your marketing folks, rope in your engineers and market specialists to describe in a couple of paragraphs what end users expect and what the product is compared to typical ones in the same niche on the market, and verify the texts withtwoseparate lawyers: one shielding the company, the other a devil's advocate, making sure it is legal in each broad market with respect to consumer rights. (For B2B, you only need the former lawyer, of course. It's just a different world, that one.)Do that right, perhaps even contacting the highest consumer rights advocate agencies in each large market for their comments on the license/contract/agreement, and make sure they don't have any big complaints, and as the manufacturer/vendor/seller/trader, you have an extremely strong position.How expensive is that? It's not; the two lawyers are the biggest cost, maybe a few k, but when it is done, it isdone. It's like having the proper commercial/business insurance when doing contract work.I don't usually get involved in consumer issues; it's the same one with regards to software licensing, especially how to correctly use both proprietary and "copyleft" licenses in a single aggregate product –– for example,Qt. And no, I'm not a lawyer, just someone who has had a IP-centric business myself. (I just wasn't at all suited for the social aspects of it, and broke myself trying to do/be/become so.) With Qt, even if you don't get the commercial license, but abide by the LGPL, you can do a proprietary product (but with specific limitations especially wrt. how the firmware is created and user-modificable, for an embedded product) in a way that keeps everyone, including Qt Group, quite happy! I keep encountering people who say"No, you must get the commercial paid license to Qt", just like OP encountered that "helpful" phone person in#27. The inverse are the many companies who use GPL software in their products, but refuse to provide the sources, or provide useless sources.Tux is my mascot, not my idol. I prefer open source tools because I'm a toolmaker myself, and tweak everything I daily use. I'm happy to use commercial, proprietary tools, and develop and help develop proprietary products, when appropriate (makes sense for both developers and users).In the last twenty-thirty years, we in the EU and UK have managed to create legislation that protects consumers from corporate legalese. (Did you know, for example, that consumer agreements are deemed valid only if they are understandable to alaypersonhere? That legalese, if complicated and only understandable to attorneys, is actually unfair practice and non-binding to consumers? Yes, this is true, and is one of the good things EU managed to unify across Europe, pretty much. You can discover this for yourself by following the links in#25: no need to believe what I claim.)