Warning - Nikon REFUSES to replace equipment they cannot fix, even if under warranty part 2

Started Jul 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sammy Yousef
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,407Gear list
Like?
Implied warranty
In reply to Mako2011, Jul 22, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:

Sammy Yousef wrote:

Mako, you're not being fair here. Nikon makes a mistake or has a bone headed policy and "that's the reality of dealing with humans". OP asks for confirmation in writing not realising the implications of doing so and it's all his fault.

Never once did I say it was all his fault (other thread). Only explained what happened from a diffrent perpective.

Why should anyone care about that different perspective? The customer does not need to learn or know anything about the camera manufacture or retail business in order to expect working gear.

Bottom line is Nikon has had multiple opportunities to fix a faulty camera and has given this user the run around.

OP, in the other thread, has a new camera. Not sure he didn't give Nikon a bit of run around as well. People are people and get different reaction sometimes. OP in this thread, cerberusjf, is not speaking regards NIKON USA so I can only say his situation is somewhat different.

A bit of a run around? Really Mako? I'd say he got the run around considering they got a camera numerous times and turned it around unrepaired. That's new. A customer being put off getting a working camera for many months is giving the manufacturer the runaround? Why because he asked for confirmation of what he was told on the phone in his specific case in writing?

All you do buy defending them in this manner is kick this user when he's down, and send a clear signal that there are users willing to put up with service, which if as described, is shoddy and possibly breaks consumer law. Worse you're encouraging others to put up with this. You know what happens if we do collectively? Quality goes down.

You're really reaching there. Taking my words out of context and adding your own subjective meaning to them.

Nope I'm not. That is exactly how you're coming across. LISTEN TO YOURSELF. A guy buys a camera and sends it back in 3 or 4 times, and it takes months to do so, and you're lecturing everyone about seeing things from a different perspective and how the OP may be giving Nikon the run around?

In the worst case scenario it continues to deteriorate until warranty is worthless and people put off buying gear because it's a gamble as to whether or not it works well. It is in NO ONE'S best interest - least of all Nikon - to put up with such a reputation....and the longer this nonsense goes the less chance they have to actually fix the issue.

Truth is not at your extreme or the other. In the middle some place

Sorry but if you take the OP at his word, there are some undisputable facts here. If there is another point of view to consider okay but as far as I know OP has not been accused of fraud, nor has Nikon responded publicly.

Put simply you are defending indefensible behaviour.

Again, your seeing defense where none exists.

Man walks up to another in a bar and punches him in the face. Do you walk up to the man who's bleeding on the floor and start lecturing about what perceived slight he may have given to cause the assault?

If it were me I'd be insisting on a full refund at this point (probably from the retailer but I'm not familiar with the intricacies of US consumer law).

Would most likely not happen. The retailer is under no responsibility (US) to meet your request. Pointless to demand for something that you might be used to getting in another country. For cerberusjf, that might have been an option

I'm no expert on US retail law but it doesn't take much to determine you are just plain wrong. The fitness for purpose of goods clause would definitely apply here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty

"In common law jurisdictions, an implied warranty is a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty#United_States

"In the United States, the obligation is in Article 2, Section 315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The warranty of fitness applies to all sellers, unlike warranty of merchantability which applies only to professional merchants. In the United States, this warranty is sometimes referred to simply as a warranty of fitness."

Furthermore by refusing to sell 3rd party repairers with parts and service software, Nikon has made itself the ONLY company that can repair a faulty camera in most circumstances. Nikon has actually taken on a liability here since the retailer has just two options when it comes to a faulty Nikon camera:

1) Send it to Nikon for repair/have the buyer do the same.

2) Replace the camera with one that works.

Assuming the OP's description is accurate Nikon appear in this particular case to be unable or unwilling to provide goods that are fit for purpose.

Assuming..... Also don't forget there are nuances to dealing with independent subsidiaries so when one says Nikon...they may not be talking about the same thing. For example, dealing with Nikon Japan can be a very different experience.

Well the alternative is to assume the OP is a liar. I have no reason to do that, and nor do you.

-- hide signature --

Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow