Print the value of index0
Fry's Electronics Warranty Compliance Failure - Failure to extend warranty due to repairs as per Civil Code 1793.1 Woodland Hills California
I purchased a laptop in April of 2004 along with a 3 year in store warranty. The laptop has been in for repair already twice in this time, with each repair lasting for a minimum of three months, and the other for almost six months. As per California Civil Code 1793.1 "...The warranty period will be extended for
the number of whole days that the product has been out of the buyer's hands for warranty repairs."
I brought the laptop in on August 20, 2007 for repairs and the service department refused to repair the laptop since the laptop was purchased in April of 2004. I explained the law to them and they refused to do the repair. They insisted that I need to come in the following day and speak to the store manager, a Todd Smith. I was informed he would be at work between 1pm and 7pm. I arrived the following day at 5pm only to find that the store manager was again unavailable. I was told by a Celso Lauber to "come back in an hour, he'll be out of his meeting by then." I came back to the store at 6pm only to find that the store manager had already left for the day. After making some fuss, another manager, a Meshba Uddin Ahmed, insisted that we should come back tomorrow to speak to the store manager. After some more arguing, he recommended that we try speaking to the Assistant Store manager. We waited for half an hour only to be told to come back in an hour and a half. At this point it's pretty clear that I'm just getting the run around since no one wants to fix this thing.
At this point Fry's Electronics will be liable for any repairs that I will do or even the cost of a new laptop since the warranty was supposed to provide a loaner.
At this point, Fry's Electronics has been reported to The Department of Consumer Affairs in California for a Civil Code violation.
Art
Chatsworth, California
U.S.A.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Art
Chatsworth,California,
U.S.A.
Won the court case
#2Author of original report
Wed, November 11, 2009
I ended up filing a lawsuit against Fry's for this issue and won my case. Fry's ended up sending their assistant manager that I mentioned in the above report to represent them in this case, who argued that since I was issued a loaner, they didn't feel that they had to extend the warranty as per California code. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn't care what they felt, but rather what was written in the code, and since 'loaners' aren't covered in the code, he ruled that the warranty should have been extended. I'll agree that I didn't plead my case as well as I should have since I've never had to sue anyone before, and lesson to be learned is, I would've won more if I had been able to explain how much of a burden this was on me an my business.