Returning a graphics card

pete248 · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:18

Hey guys,

It seems i have got myself into a bit of a predicament. I recently purchased a GTX460 from a website (they are completely legit) and received it. I plugged it in, and it turned out it was a Version 2 card so it wouldn't SLI with my V1 card. (see here http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-460/specifications.

I contacted them, told them my situation, and they refused to accept a return as the card had been used and i should have checked the specifications first (the memory bandwidth is different on the V2s). On their website, they sold the product as a EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1GB (the specs did specify the memory bandwidth was 192-bit, implying a V2), when on the nVidia link above it specifically mentions a different title for the V2 card (GTX 460 v2 1GB).

So I suppose my question is am I wrong for not checking that the memory bandwidth was different (and therefore a V2 card) or are they wrong for the product being labeled as a "EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1GB" with no mention of it being a version 2 card? (the nVidia site specifies the card with the lower bandwidth as V2 in the title).

After much arguing and the company initially declining, here is the end to the story:

pete248 said:
Of course gents! Just making sure it all went smoothly so I could write up the full story So after being rejected initially, I decided to email customer service again (not the particular agent I was dealing with) and ask very politely if I could return the graphics card. Lo and behold, the same guy replies (who I was talking to initially) saying he will recheck my request again on Monday (as it was a Friday). After not being emailed on Tuesday, I emailed again asking what the decision was, and they replied with this:

"It's a change of mind return which has been opened and installed on your
system, if you still wish to return it we will need to charge you a
restocking fee."

I said that under the DSR I don't believe they could charge me a restocking fee. They then replied with:

"DSR states that if a customer returns an item unused and unopened then there
is no restocking fee. However, when the item has been used "more than
examined", then we can charge you the restocking fee based on the condition.
However, if the item's condition is as new then there will be no charge but
you will need to send the item yourself."

And that's pretty much it! They sent me and RMA number and asked me to adjust my feedback on trustpilot (I kept the original review and just made an edit at the bottom), I returned it and got refunded. I actually asked him why they changed their mind and he said it was because my return had to be approved by "the board". So I asked why he couldn't of just said in the first place to avoid confrontation, and it was because "he had no option", he had to decline my return until he chased it up with "the board". Hmmmm.

So after all that, being persistent was worth it! Thanks for all your help guys!

lrlcr · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:20

How recently, dsr...

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:20

They can't refuse if you're doing it under a DSR. Tell them they must follow the law, and if they refuse you'll contact your credit card company, who you are sure will do a chargeback.

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:25

Actually if they didn't make reference to it being V2 and V2 and V1 being incompatible...

In that case I'd tell them you want to return it as unfit for purpose, and you want them to pay your postage back to them. Again threaten them with a chargeback.

It is not reasonable to know that you have to check to see if a card is V1 or V2 for SLi compatibility, that's an nVidia mistake and the retailer is at fault because they sold the goods to you without being clear about it.

pete248 · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:25

I did mention the DSR, but they said that only applies if the item is unused? I was unsure of this so just left it to brush up tonight for round 2 tomorrow! Also, technically it has been more than 7 days since i received it, but i DID send them an email on the 14th and they never replied (they acknowledged i sent an email to them but didn't mention why i never received a reply).

It ended with the guy saying he will need to speak to a manager, and i sent an email with a picture of the item and saying i want to return it to another employee but i haven't received a reply (i sent this email at 1.30 this afternoon)

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:28

Rubbish to the unused part of the DSR. You contacted them within the 7 days so I think that's enough - although I don't know for sure if DSR can only be done by phone, or by post etc... I expect an email is enough. As I've just said though I'd be going down the unfit for purpose route.

Surveyor · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:31

The Halk said:
Actually if they didn't make reference to it being V2 and V2 and V1 being incompatible...

In that case I'd tell them you want to return it as unfit for purpose, and you want them to pay your postage back to them. Again threaten them with a chargeback.

It is not reasonable to know that you have to check to see if a card is V1 or V2 for SLi compatibility, that's an nVidia mistake and the retailer is at fault because they sold the goods to you without being clear about it.

It's fit for purpose.

Unless the OP gave them his system spec. and asked them specifically if it would work in his system the retailer isn't responsible for him buying incompatible components.

His only option is the DSR as it doesn't sound like they offer any form of satisfaction guarantee.

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:33

It's not fit for purpose. They've sold it as a GTX460 and it's entirely reasonable to assume it is a GTX460. If in fact it's not a GTX460 and it's a very similar which is incompatible with other GTX460s but performs the same as a GTX460 then it's not as described, and he can return it as unfit for purpose and expect a full refund including postage.

pete248 · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:34

Ok then, thanks for your help, I will contact them tomorrow (again) and put forward that the DSR covers any item as long as I contacted them within 7 days. This is the law so i shouldn't even have to use the unfit for purpose argument really!

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:35

If you can do it as unfit for purpose you can get your costs to return it to them refunded. Unless they've been very sloppy and not put it in their T&C, you'll have to pay costs to return it to them under DSR.

pete248 · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:37

The Halk said:
If you can do it as unfit for purpose you can get your costs to return it to them refunded. Unless they've been very sloppy and not put it in their T&C, you'll have to pay costs to return it to them under DSR.

On their returns policy page they do state "if the buyer properly rejects any of the goods in accordance with the Distance Selling Regulations within 7 working days in writing, the Supplier shall nonetheless be responsible for the return cost of the goods." So i assume if i win the DSR argument then they will fulfill their policy.

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:40

What the? That's unusual

Well, take advantage of that and get your postage costs removed. To be a little cautious, when they agree the DSR return ask them what kind of postage they want you to use, don't mention postage costs. Ask them if royal mail special guaranteed up to the value is good enough for them. That way they can't complain about postage costs when you ask for them to be refunded.

sadbuttrue · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:41

Unfit for purpose is something that requires proof. The DSR is a blanket right and should be used if you are having issues with the company imo.

The DSR is 7 working days so you are still covered.

Can I insist that consumers who cancel an order within the cancellation period return the goods as new or in their original packaging?

3.58 No. Consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods while in their possession as discussed in paragraph 3.44. The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods. In these circumstances you cannot insist that consumers return the goods as new or in their original packaging.

You may ask consumers to return goods with the original packaging, but you cannot insist on this. In the case of goods such as earrings that have hygiene seals, you may require consumers to exercise reasonable care by not removing the seals when examining them.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Surveyor · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:42

The Halk said:
It's not fit for purpose. They've sold it as a GTX460 and it's entirely reasonable to assume it is a GTX460. If in fact it's not a GTX460 and it's a very similar which is incompatible with other GTX460s but performs the same as a GTX460 then it's not as described, and he can return it as unfit for purpose and expect a full refund including postage.

It is fit for purpose.

It is a GTX 460.

It's purpose is to function as a graphics card and it does.

Unless they stated it was SLI compatible with all other GTX 460s then the OP has no comeback on the retailer.

It's no different than the OP buying any number of other components which wouldn't be compatible with his system.

pete248 · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:45

sadbuttrue said:
Unfit for purpose is something that requires proof. The DSR is a blanket right and should be used if you are having issues with the company imo.

The DSR is 7 working days so you are still covered.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Thank you for that link, i will quote that if needed. I received the product on the 11th and sent an email on the 14th, but they never replied, does the DSR say anything about this? Because technically now it's been more than 7 days.

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:45

DSR is certainly easier than unfit for purpose. If there's no difference - here they seem to be wanting to refund postage anyway - then DSR is the one to use.

If they weren't going to refund postage then I'd be going after the unfit, they'd dispute it and I'd say let's agree to get it sent back since the DSR still covers it, and I'd still chase them for the return costs, and failing that speak to my credit card company about it. I always win these type of fights with companies, and I wouldn't expect it to get as far as speaking to the credit card company - in fact I've only ever had to do one chargeback and I complain any time I don't get what I want.

arknor · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:46

I did mention the DSR, but they said that only applies if the item is unused?

you dont even need to send it back in its original packaging you could send it back in a tupaware box

The Halk · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:47

Surveyor said:
It is fit for purpose.

It is a GTX 460.

It's purpose is to function as a graphics card and it does.

Unless they stated it was SLI compatible with all other GTX 460s then the OP has no comeback on the retailer.

It's no different than the OP buying any number of other components which wouldn't be compatible with his system.

I think you're wrong. SLI is an important function of it, and it is not suitable for SLI, so it's unfit for purpose.

If the only test for fitness was that it functioned as a graphics card then you could sell anything with similar performance as a GTX 460. That is not the case though, GTX 460 is not a function, it's not a performance measurement. GTX460 doesn't mean a certain amount of polygon calculations per second, for example, it means a specific model of graphics card. If it was a GTX 460 it would be compatible with a GTX 460.

sadbuttrue · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:52

pete248 said:
Thank you for that link, i will quote that if needed. I received the product on the 11th and sent an email on the 14th, but they never replied, does the DSR say anything about this? Because technically now it's been more than 7 days.

You simply have to contact the company with 7 working days. Make sure you keep the email as proof if they deny receiving it.

Surveyor · 20 Jun 2012 at 00:55

The Halk said:
I think you're wrong. SLI is an important function of it, and it is not suitable for SLI, so it's unfit for purpose.

If the only test for fitness was that it functioned as a graphics card then you could sell anything with similar performance as a GTX 460. That is not the case though, GTX 460 is not a function, it's not a performance measurement. GTX460 doesn't mean a certain amount of polygon calculations per second, for example, it means a specific model of graphics card. If it was a GTX 460 it would be compatible with a GTX 460.

If you sold something as a GTX 460 because it was similar to a GTX 460 then it would be misdescribed which is a different matter.

It was sold as a GTX 460 which is a specific model of GPU and that's what it is.

I doubt the OP would have a legal leg to stand on with the fit for purpose argument.

He didn't check the compatibility before he bought it which is his mistake.

Hopefully he'll be able to sort this out using the DSR.