Your contract is with the retailer you bought the GPU from, not the manufacturer.
I've had Amazon try this tactic on with me at least two times with products that failed within warranty, and had to remind them of the above.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Nvidia 572.16 bricked my GPU!
- Thread starter Mr Mcgoo
- Start date
Your contract is with the retailer you bought the GPU from, not the manufacturer.
I've had Amazon try this tactic on with me at least two times with products that failed within warranty, and had to remind them of the above.
A bad driver can kill the hardware - it manages various limits (voltages, power, temperatures etc.) and it also manages fans. NVIDIA had drivers that killed GPUs in the past.
Now, regarding this issue, I've seen even GN said their GPU suffered failure after new drivers that even DDU didn't fix, but they found a way how to bring it back to working state, though it's hidden in one of their newest videos, where they described steps. If I recall correctly they mentioned something about driver triggering something in BIOS of the graphics card and they had to make it be triggered again to revert to the working state - but I wasn't listening too closely, as not affected by it (yet).
Last edited:
Eh, it's not that simple. It all depends on the exact wording of the contract and whether you go for warranty or distant sale regulations, which only give you good protection for the first 6 months and after that good luck:
"You must repair or replace an item if a customer returns it within 6 months - unless you can prove it was not faulty when they bought it.
You can ask a customer to prove an item was faulty when they bought it if they ask for a repair or replacement after 6 months.".
Accepting returns and giving refunds: the law
When you do and do not have to offer a refund, repair or replacement, unconditional refunds for online purchases, and penalties for deceiving customers
Warranty is a very different beast and it can but doesn't have to be between you and retailer - it can be just between you and manufacturer, without including retailer. Unless seller specifically says it's them providing warranty, it's between the buyer and whoever is listed on the warranty card (it could be manufacturer but also distributor, or other 3rd party). This is also why it's normal to see 3y warranty but 5y after registration with the manufacturer - it's obvious that it's then manufacturer providing it directly, on their terms, and it's not a legal requirement. So, if after 3y they offer you a product of similar performance but much cheaper, it can be totally ok as long as that's what warranty terms claim. Same with them offering just half the monies back for example, etc.
To summarise - always read the contract, don't assume anything. That sellers like OCUK and other still try to help (sometimes after being pushed for it) is not the same as them being forced to help by law. So, don't be nasty in conversations with them and you can gain much more than for example yelling at them, as with the latter behaviour you might get no help at all.
PS. To be clear, saying you, I mean the reader, not Kelt specifically.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
If a bad driver can cause a GPU to fail then the firmware on the card is not doing it's job ergo the card is bad.
There are always bugs in software, that includes firmware, drivers etc. Unexpected things can happen. Manufacturers should test them better but we've seen not that long ago how for example CrowdStrike messed up millions of machines world-wide with one badly tested update. And then we have a few cases at least of melting power cables/plugs with 5k series GPUs again, when it was all supposedly fixed.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
You're wrong. You have consumer rights with the retailer no matter what - that's in addition to your warranty from the manufacturer. 2 separate things. The retailer should NOT be telling you to go back to the manufacturer (many do though). The 6 month thing is just where the onus switches from them having to prove it wasn't faulty to you proving it.Eh, it's not that simple. It all depends on the exact wording of the contract and whether you go for warranty or distant sale regulations, which only give you good protection for the first 6 months and after that good luck:
"You must repair or replace an item if a customer returns it within 6 months - unless you can prove it was not faulty when they bought it.
You can ask a customer to prove an item was faulty when they bought it if they ask for a repair or replacement after 6 months.".
Accepting returns and giving refunds: the law
When you do and do not have to offer a refund, repair or replacement, unconditional refunds for online purchases, and penalties for deceiving customerswww.gov.uk
Warranty is a very different beast and it can but doesn't have to be between you and retailer - it can be just between you and manufacturer, without including retailer. Unless seller specifically says it's them providing warranty, it's between the buyer and whoever is listed on the warranty card (it could be manufacturer but also distributor, or other 3rd party). This is also why it's normal to see 3y warranty but 5y after registration with the manufacturer - it's obvious that it's then manufacturer providing it directly, on their terms, and it's not a legal requirement. So, if after 3y they offer you a product of similar performance but much cheaper, it can be totally ok as long as that's what warranty terms claim. Same with them offering just half the monies back for example, etc.
To summarise - always read the contract, don't assume anything. That sellers like OCUK and other still try to help (sometimes after being pushed for it) is not the same as them being forced to help by law. So, don't be nasty in conversations with them and you can gain much more than for example yelling at them, as with the latter behaviour you might get no help at all.
PS. To be clear, saying you, I mean the reader, not Kelt specifically.
Check my post again, there's this nice link there to UK gov website which exactly explains how this work. Compare it to what I said and then come back to quote exactly wrong parts. Hint: I am not wrong. Retailer is usually not responsible for a warranty. If consumer tells them "I want to use warranty", retailer can send them to the responsible party (e.g. manufacturer etc.). Retailer can't force people to use distant sale regulations - they can't refuse it, but they can't insist on it either. It's consumer's choice. Consumer need to be more careful what they actually demand. Also, after 6 months since purchase, it's very hard and expensive to prove (as per legal requirements) that the product was already faulty on purchase day - and only then retailer has legal requirements to repair or replace it. Sometimes warranty really is a better choice.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
Sure, it might sound like I'm splitting hairs but it's an important distinction. The firmware is there to provide safe and consistent low-level operation. If a driver mistakenly asks for 20 volts and the firmware just gives it 20 volts, then that card is faulty (so is the driver).There are always bugs in software, that includes firmware, drivers etc. Unexpected things can happen. Manufacturers should test them better but we've seen not that long ago how for example CrowdStrike messed up millions of machines world-wide with one badly tested update. And then we have a few cases at least of melting power cables/plugs with 5k series GPUs again, when it was all supposedly fixed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,431
Did you ensure you deslected the "Do you wish the drivers to brick your GPU" during driver install? 
I agree. I am just saying, producers should test these things better. They don't, consumers suffer later, whilst paying good money for these products. :/ But sometimes (often these days), instead of proper outrage and push on manufacturers to do a better job, we get some people who excuse them and blame it all on consumer, because they just love to be a shield for a corporation. I don't get such behaviour, though I also don't think ALL outrage is justified - cool heads prevail, but push is still needed.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
You're muddling up different things;
Distance Selling - User buys over the phone/internet, can reject the item for whatever reason they like in an initial period, nothing to do with faults
Consumer protection laws - The retailer is responsible for rectifying faults or goods not as described. This is provided by law.
Manufacturer's warranty - Not required by law, offered by the manufacturer in varying duration
If the customer speaks to the shop and happens to use the phrase 'warranty', when they really mean their consumer rights and the retailer shoves them off to the manufacture, then they, imo, are being a dishonest ********. Any time a retailer tries to gaslight a customer into thinking they have no responsibility to make things right, they are being deliberately dishonest. You should always go back to the retailer first.
Ugh 
I think you are confusing a few things here.
(I) A retailer like John Lewis might offer (for purchase) an extended warranty with many purchases particularly on white goods.
(II) Separately, manufacturer might offer a manufacturer’s warranty as a gesture of good will if there are defects within a certain period, in turn offering to retailers that they will deal with such issues as they can deal with them better anyway.
(III) There are then warranties that are provided to consumers as part of a sale contract with a retailer as a matter of law.
The article you linked to simply states that the type of warranty referred to in (III) always applies.
In the (very unlikely) event that a manufacturer refused to deal with you under its manufacturer’s warranty - which would be a commercially stupid thing to do and makes this an extreme hypothetical / academic scenario - your primary right of recourse would be against the retailer for a breach of the contract for sale that you have made with it.
Separately, depending on the facts of the matter it is not necessarily unreasonable for a retailer to refer customers to a manufacturer if the manufacturer is willing to help (as part of its manufacturer’s warranty) and is ultimately the best party to deal with the issue.
I think you are confusing a few things here.
(I) A retailer like John Lewis might offer (for purchase) an extended warranty with many purchases particularly on white goods.
(II) Separately, manufacturer might offer a manufacturer’s warranty as a gesture of good will if there are defects within a certain period, in turn offering to retailers that they will deal with such issues as they can deal with them better anyway.
(III) There are then warranties that are provided to consumers as part of a sale contract with a retailer as a matter of law.
The article you linked to simply states that the type of warranty referred to in (III) always applies.
In the (very unlikely) event that a manufacturer refused to deal with you under its manufacturer’s warranty - which would be a commercially stupid thing to do and makes this an extreme hypothetical / academic scenario - your primary right of recourse would be against the retailer for a breach of the contract for sale that you have made with it.
Separately, depending on the facts of the matter it is not necessarily unreasonable for a retailer to refer customers to a manufacturer if the manufacturer is willing to help (as part of its manufacturer’s warranty) and is ultimately the best party to deal with the issue.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
It used to be true, but I'm unsure if it's still the case, but bypassing the retailer and going to the manufacturer ends your rights with the retailer which are often better than the usual single year manufacturer warranty. Hence why it's not recommended.Ugh
I think you are confusing a few things here.
(I) A retailer like John Lewis might offer (for purchase) an extended warranty with many purchases particularly on white goods.
(II) Separately, manufacturer might offer a manufacturer’s warranty as a gesture of good will if there are defects within a certain period, in turn offering to retailers that they will deal with such issues as they can deal with them better anyway.
(III) There are then warranties that are provided to consumers as part of a sale contract with a retailer as a matter of law.
The article you linked to simply states that the type of warranty referred to in (III) always applies.
In the (very unlikely) event that a manufacturer refused to deal with you under its manufacturer’s warranty - which would be a commercially stupid thing to do and makes this an extreme hypothetical / academic scenario - your primary right of recourse would be against the retailer for a breach of the contract for sale that you have made with it.
Separately, depending on the facts of the matter it is not necessarily unreasonable for a retailer to refer customers to a manufacturer if the manufacturer is willing to help (as part of its manufacturer’s warranty) and is ultimately the best party to deal with the issue.
The talk was about specifically distant sale (with a specific retailer brought up), which is why I brought that up too. On UK website linked by me both things are described on the same page, just different paragraphs. But correct, returns within 14 days and the responsibility of a seller for faults are not the same things. Part of the same law, though. I specifically described warranty is a very different beast - not sure why you think I muddled it together with the law? Quite the opposite.
Really? So now you claim to know better what consumer mean by their words than they do? Ridiculous assumption IMHO. Also, not how the law works - exact words matter a lot. When I call the shop and ask about warranty, I mean warranty, not anything else. When I ask for my legal rights to be respected, I also calmly explain what I want, so to avoid misunderstandings. And as mentioned, there are cases where warranty terms are just is better than legal protection. One should read both, compare, and choose a better way for themselves. Retailer isn't require to do that for the consumer, it's consumer's job. Maybe when we stop treating adults like small children, they will actually learn to read things before they sign or use them?
Or you just assume too much and turn yourself into an unpleasant person whom nobody wants to help. Never forget you deal with a real person on the other side, misunderstandings can happen, so always be civil and just talk like to a person, with proper words and proper meaning, so there are no misunderstandings.
Or they aren't and try to help the customer with exactly the thing customer asked them to be helped with. The problem is a lot of customers do not know their rights, do not know what they want, do not read any warranty terms, just read random post online and based it all on that, for example. And then get upset, start yelling or bring up legal things that do not exist, mixing warranty with their legal rights and generally get very difficult to help them. This can be usually avoided, which also speeds up things.
When I had issues with my electricity provider and they ignored my calm messages I just contacted ombudsman and they dealt with the problem without the need for my blood pressure to raise.
When I tried to return a new 4TB M.2 SSD and the postage label didn't work, I contacted the retailer, talked with them calmly about it and in their system it was already marked as returned, so they simply told me to keep it or sell it and come back to shop with them again. All done calmly, with a smile, never with me assuming the worst or making the other person go all defensive.The thing is that most good retailers want to help consumer, consumer just has to tell them exactly what they want and then both sides can work on achieving good outcome. And to be clear, I've not worked for a retailer for about 15 years now, but back in the days I did work in a service department dealing with RMAs and talking a lot to customers, so I know exactly how this works from both sides of the fence.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2015
- Posts
- 558
I have had SO many instances where retailers;The talk was about specifically distant sale (with a specific retailer brought up), which is why I brought that up too. On UK website linked by me both things are described on the same page, just different paragraphs. But correct, returns within 14 days and the responsibility of a seller for faults are not the same things. Part of the same law, though. I specifically described warranty is a very different beast - not sure why you think I muddled it together with the law? Quite the opposite.
Really? So now you claim to know better what consumer mean by their words than they do? Ridiculous assumption IMHO. Also, not how the law works - exact words matter a lot. When I call the shop and ask about warranty, I mean warranty, not anything else. When I ask for my legal rights to be respected, I also calmly explain what I want, so to avoid misunderstandings. And as mentioned, there are cases where warranty terms are just is better than legal protection. One should read both, compare, and choose a better way for themselves. Retailer isn't require to do that for the consumer, it's consumer's job. Maybe when we stop treating adults like small children, they will actually learn to read things before they sign or use them?
Or you just assume too much and turn yourself into an unpleasant person whom nobody wants to help. Never forget you deal with a real person on the other side, misunderstandings can happen, so always be civil and just talk like to a person, with proper words and proper meaning, so there are no misunderstandings.
Or they aren't and try to help the customer with exactly the thing customer asked them to be helped with. The problem is a lot of customers do not know their rights, do not know what they want, do not read any warranty terms, just read random post online and based it all on that, for example. And then get upset, start yelling or bring up legal things that do not exist, mixing warranty with their legal rights and generally get very difficult to help them. This can be usually avoided, which also speeds up things.
When I had issues with my electricity provider and they ignored my calm messages I just contacted ombudsman and they dealt with the problem without the need for my blood pressure to raise.
The thing is that most good retailers want to help consumer, consumer just has to tell them exactly what they want and then both sides can work on achieving good outcome. And to be clear, I've not worked for a retailer for about 15 years now, but back in the days I did work in a service department dealing with RMAs and talking a lot to customers, so I know exactly how this works from both sides of the fence.
- Knew absolutely nothing about UK consumer law
- Tried to gaslight me into thinking they are not beholden to any law
- Tried to insist I must deal directly with the manufacturer
- Consider something that's obviously a defect, not a defect
- Do absolutely everything they can to weasel out of complying with consumer law
Quite the opposite but lets see below.
Correct. It can also be an insurance instead (which is neither warranty nor sales of goods laws) - often wrongly described as extended warranty, but then in terms of contract it's described as an insurance with different terms and legal definition than warranty. One has to be careful and read the fine print.
Correct, they might. It's not a legal requirement but it's also not a "gesture of a good will" either in my eyes - often their competition will offer it, so they have to as well, or they won't have much sales. Competition is a good thing.
No, that's wrong. I know what you're trying to say here, but exact wording matters - it can't be called a warranty/guarantee, as these require specific document with terms listed and be named as such, along with stating exactly who will deal with that in case of a claim. It is NOT by default a seller, it's whoever is stated in the document (which in this way can be treated as a contract). If there are no terms of warranty and proper document attached, then you're not getting any warranty really - just false claim by retailer, for which they're legally responsible.
Where did you get that idea from? To quote the only bit that even talks about warranty in the article:
"A customer has the same right to free repairs or a replacement regardless of whether they have a warranty or guarantee or not. So you may still have to repair or replace goods if a customer’s warranty or guarantee has run out.".
The legal protection has nothing to do with any warranty/guarantee - nothing at all. It's highly advised not to mix these 2 things together, as this is what causes a lot of misunderstandings later. Hence, when you say I confuse things, it's actually the opposite.
Having attended a few civil court cases back in the days (consumers against retailers), as a technical expert, I've heard enough from judges and lawyers to know how this works in practice.Eh... really? You missed the whole Asus shenanigans not so long ago, with them refusing warranty for made up reasons? This happens more often than we imagine, sadly. Sometimes because consumers didn't read terms of said warranty and for example try to RMA battery after one year (which usually has only 6-12 months warranty because it's legally classified as a consumable); sometimes because it's manufacturer (or whoever gave the warranty) trying to wiggle out from their contractual obligations.
And what is good to remember - they're largely independent of each other, the warranty and legal rights. Using one doesn't remove the other option. However, as I said earlier, after 6 months form purchase it gets very difficult and expensive to prove to retailer that they sold you a faulty product. Some of them have their own experts who are fully legally allowed to reject such claims unless well evidenced by the consumer (which, frankly, most consumers have no clue about). On the other hand, warranty can last only 24 months for example but you can come back to the seller within up to 6 (sic!) years from purchase - which a lot of consumers do not know either. It's always a good idea to check everything and choose a better route for oneself, to save on time and nerves.
Exactly. And often going directly through the manufacturer can speed up things considerably - which is why I check carefuly before RMA which way is better for me. I got few times brand new products from manufacturer as replacement, even though retailer offered me just a refund (but price of the product already was higher), or repair, etc. Nothing stops one from contacting both sides to find out their terms, estimated time, estimated resolution etc. Be well informed, then pick the best course of action.
Retailers or the person you spoke to?
Customer support lvl1 doesn't know much about anything in general. They can escalate the case, or ask someone higher though. Often it's enough to ask them to do it nicely.
This happens, but more often than not it's not malicious, it's just incompetence or wrong internal SOP. Again, politely ask for escalation - usually they have to do it then, as per internal procedures.
As per above, incompetence, or wrong SOP to follow. I wouldn't blame a person, I would blame the system at worse. Sometimes malicious behaviour, but that's very rare as law punishes such retailers after reporting it.
What's obvious to you doesn't have to be obvious to another person. Never assume they know anything about the thing, their job is to answer the phone and log the ticket usually, not much more. Their salary usually reflects that too.
Once again, you need to put a distinction between a person or the company. I don't negate some companies are really shoddy, but it's not just retailers, we have Asus doing such things very recently and then few months earlier as well. There's a difference between just junior person answering your message/call or a bad internal procedures steaming from their management. If the latter is the problem, don't waste time, just move on to ombudsman, as you won't win and will just damage your health trying to fight them directly.
My point exactly - consumers need to own it and start reading about their best course of action. There's quite a few very helpful websites that explains a lot, for example citizen advice one has even a chat that can direct one further or explain what would be best course of action, give contact to proper ombudsman, etc. And yes, if you don't know your rights, you can't assume other people will help you for free - that's not just with retail, that's with everything in life.
Yes and no. As per my earlier link:
"You do not have to refund a customer if they:
- damaged an item by trying to repair it themselves or getting someone else to do it (though they may still have the right to a repair, replacement or partial refund)"
There are also cases where manufacturer will ask you to go through the seller, as they have special agreements with the seller to send warranty through them - because of how they can then reimburse the seller easier if needed etc.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,454
If you were calling up or dealing with live chat then yes, but many times you can be on a back and forth where they have ample opportunity to check, or even ask for escalation and they still try the same thing. Some companies just try to have policies which contradict UK consumer law and you have to go to your credit card company to get what you're acutally entitled to (there was a big thing with Currys a few years back on like watchdog and so on, not sure if they improved things since then). In effect the "person you're speaking to" IS the company for all intents and purposes, as you say they will be following company SOP and often these contradict law, escalating often doesn't get you around these as even the managers are told to follow the same SOP.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,454
given the ambiguity, its always much better to send the card to the retailer and allow them to send it to the manufacturer, you are absolutely 100% covered in that case with zero ambiguity
if they flat refuse but tell you to send it to the manufacturer then you are also covered as you have it in writing that their repair process is to have you send it directly to the manufacturer
but you should definitely talk to the retailer first without just sending it off under your own bat
Last edited: