[mdavis]

The following four emails tell the whole story:

To: CUSTOMERSERVICE@AXMICRO.COM
Subject: TREO600 BATTERY FAILURE



I bought a Treo600 battery from you at the end of November and installed
it in December. Your instructions, and tools, were very helpful. However
now, four months later, the phone started failing--even though the voltage
seems adequate and it charges fully, the phone fails at various points in
conversations.

To assure you that it is the battery and not the phone, here are three
other symptoms that confirm that it is the battery:

1. When it is powered to the charger, it works flawlessly.
2. When I put the external battery pack onto the phone, it works flawlessly.
3. And, finally, I have now removed your battery and replaced it with my
old battery, and the phone works flawlessly!

I am reluctant to ask for a new battery and ask for trouble again; despite
four months of very fine service, I am a bit worried about taking the
phone apart and putting it together every four months, so I will wait to
hear what you have to say. If you can tell me that this is some sort of
exceptional failure and that these batteries generally perform with no
problems, I would like to try a new battery. However, if this is not an
uncommon symptom and others have reported it, I think I deserve some sort
of credit for this battery.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: TREO600 BATTERY FAILURE
From: "Customer Service" <customerservice@axmicro.com>
Date: Mon, April 18, 2005 4:01 pm

Hello,

You are well out of the warranty period for this battery.


_____
Thank You,
Customer Service
AX Micro Solutions, Inc.
(Formerly GetHighTech, Inc.)


To: customerservice@axmicro.com
Subject: RE: TREO600 BATTERY FAILURE


How long was the warranty? It only lasted four months!

Subject: RE: TREO600 BATTERY FAILURE
From: "Customer Service" <customerservice@axmicro.com>
Date: Mon, April 18, 2005 4:15 pm


The warranty is 30 days.


_____
Thank You,
Customer Service
AX Micro Solutions, Inc.
(Formerly GetHighTech, Inc.)

[Dragonman]

You didn't check to see what the warranty was BEFORE you purchased?? Now you find out it is only 30 days and that you are out of warranty by 90 days and you post here warning us to "watch out".

Ever heard the saying "Caveat Emptor" ? It means let the buyer beware. I would not be concernrd with ordering from this company based on your post, merely to make sure I understand the terms and conditions of said purchase.

Just my $.02

[Silver5]

I think that the warning here is still valid. The company may not have lied about the warranty, but they still sell what appears to be a bad product and are not willing to stand behind it, hence the 30 day warranty.

I say STAY AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY. 30 days warranty!!??!

[Joad]

I think that the warning here is still valid. The company may not have lied about the warranty, but they still sell what appears to be a bad product and are not willing to stand behind it, hence the 30 day warranty.

I say STAY AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY. 30 days warranty!!??!

30 day's warranty on an internal rechargable cell phone battery is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyone who DID read the warranty page would expect 30-days warranty on a "permanently" installed battery to be a typo, but apparently it's not. If it were truly "Designed to the same specs as Palm" then it's curious why they only stand behind it barely long enough to cash your check...

Frankly, I'm glad he posted because I'll be very careful about reading gethightech.com/axmicro.com's terms with a fine toothcomb if I am ever stuck with a need to buy from them. If a product has such a ridiculously short warranty an honorable company would post it on the product description page so it's obvious, not bury it in some submenu. http://www.gethightech.com/Merchant2...gory_Code=BATT

[mdavis]

There's something else now that I see these comments. The law in every state forbids this kind of so-called "warranty" which is not a warranty at all. It is an ineffective attempt at an exclusion of warranty. Every good sold comes with a warranty of merchantability, no matter what a merchant says to the contrary. That means it is basically fit to be sold and will perform reasonably. The warranty has to give you a meaningful assurance. In the case of a battery, it should last for the normal time that other batteries are sold to last. If it doesnt you have a right to your money back (or perhaps only the money representing the time you had left). If a merchant wants to exclude that warranty, which exists as a matter of law, he has to take several important steps in advance of the sale which include at minimum a conspicuous notice to that effect. The laws of all states are so concerned about this that they even specify the size of the type that such an exclusion must bear. Of course some slick merchants have no intention of honoring such a warranty, knowing that it is too expensive for the buyer to enforce and when they sell so few that it would not be worthwhile to bring a class action, they feel safe in acting in this way. The only remedy is to post like this, which is what I have done.

Incidentally, caveat emptor no longer applies to very many things. It's a latin term, from the Romans, which indicates how outdated it is. Caveat emptor applies to real estate, and even there it has been altered by state laws (like those requiring disclosure of certain defects).

~Brrroooongggg~ Class over.

[Biggles]

Certainly in the UK any warranty cannot override your legal rights and you would definitely be successful in taking them to court for a refund.

But how about your credit card? Here, if you buy something by credit card, the CC company is jointly liable with the vendor and will normally refund your payment. Is it not the same in the US?

[mdavis]

No. At best it is up to the individual company's policy; there is no legal requirement.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

Suggested dramatic License here.

Hmmmm.... Dude, Let's start a company. We'll call GetHighTech.
Get High, High Tech Get it?

Dude, that would be soooo cool. Let's rename it though so people don't get suspicious.

(Hey check the Avatar)

[Dragonman]

Caveat Emptor may not apply lawfully, but I was referring to common sense. YOU are responsible for what you choose to spend your money on. Did they force you to buy from them??

The terms of their Warranty policy are very clearly stated on their website under the link entitled "Warranty and Exchange policy". If you chose not to read it why are they a bad company?

4 months does sound like an extremely short time for a replacement to work, and it does sound like it should work longer, but it looks to me like the company covered it's bases. You just didn't read the information provided and now want to blame them for a short warranty period.

They lived up to their end of the deal whether you like it or not. They did everything they agreed to do. They warranted the part for the CLEARLY stated and agreed to time.

That is my honest opinion. Feel free to disagree.

[JackNaylorPE]

One of the reasons I always advised against Sony Laptops is that the Battery warranty on your $2k laptop was 30 days. Haven't looked back in over 18 months to see if they changed it as they got slammed in the press about this.

[mdavis]

...
They lived up to their end of the deal whether you like it or not. They did everything they agreed to do.
....

That of course is not true and that is the point. The only thing we agreed on is that they were supplying me with a battery fully the equivalent of a Treo battery only better. That was the import of their description. Instead they supplied me with something that varied materially from what they purported to be selling. That is called fraud. For the rest of what is really a specious argument I think the others here have said it better than me.

[Dragonman]

You agreed to the warranty when you made the purchase. It is clearly stated on their page. I didn't see anywhere where it said it would last any longer than an OEM battery. It said it would hold a longer charge. It also said the warranty was 30 days.

How did they defraud you? Their terms and conditions where clearly stated and AGREED to when you AGREED to purchase. Call it specious if you want, but the bottom line is they lived up to their STATED and AGREED TO terms and conditions. Your perception of their product is beyond their control and irrelevant. You agreed to a contract. If it's fraud why not charge them criminally??

On the positive side a call to the BBB may yield enough pressure for them to give you at least partial credit back. But there is nothing that says they have to.

[mdavis]

You agreed to the warranty when you made the purchase. It is clearly stated on their page. ...

How did they defraud you? Their terms and conditions where clearly stated and AGREED to when you AGREED to purchase. ...

ve you at least partial credit back. But there is nothing that says they have to.

First, I agreed to no warranty. They posted a warranty that is in violation of law on another page. A link is not a posting. Second, the warranty is void because it is an exclusion not allowed by state law. I could not agree to an illegal term, could I? Well, for fear that you might actually say yes, for the tone of your comments is that anything goes in an agreement, let me just say no, you can't agree to illegal terms, and anything does not go. Of course it was not "clearly," as you say, for the law says it has to be conspicuous (not hidden in a link) and larger type than everything else (not, in fact smaller as it was).

The battery was presented as fully the equivalent as an OEM battery, but greater capacity. It was not. It may have had greater capacity, but its life is shorter--not shorter by a month or two, but shorter by something like 85 to 90% assuming Treo batteries last two to three years or more, which they do. Thus, I did not get what I agreed to--an equivalent battery with greater charge--and they deceived me.

What you are confusing is this so-called warranty and the terms of their sale. I agreed to a sale. I agreed to no warranty; in fact I really agreed to nothing except the battery in exchange for money. Whether or not the warranty is binding, which is clearly not the case, that does not afffect what I bargained for in the substance of the sale. It may or may not affect my remedy, but does not affect the fraud. I didn't agree to a fraud.

[Dragonman]

Unless you reside in the same state as the seller State law doesn't apply. Fedral law does.

I disagree that the warranty is against the law. Please state the Fedral statute it violates.

[mdavis]

That's incorrect. You may go to federal court (or more likely you won't) but this is certainly a matter of state law. And it violates the UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the law in at least 49 states now.

[Biggles]

You agreed to the warranty when you made the purchase. It is clearly stated on their page. I didn't see anywhere where it said it would last any longer than an OEM battery. It said it would hold a longer charge. It also said the warranty was 30 days.

I'm be surprised if US consumer law were too dissimilar to the UK, where an obscenely short 'warranty' is overridden by your legal entitlement.

The usual legal test is 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable for a brand new battery to fail in two to four months? I don't think so.

These are scamsters and you make damn sure you get every penny back, as well as reporting them to your state trading standards authority, who should be very interested in such iniquitous terms of trading.

[Dragonman]

By completing your order with us you agree to the terms listed.
Warranty Policy

We provide a 30 day limited exchange warranty on all items we sell. This warranty does not apply if you damage the part. If an item is damaged during shipping, please do not open it. We ask that you contact AX Micro Solutions immediately for replacement. The warranty is at our discretion and only applies to an exchange for the same part

This is copied directly from their site. What Statute states this is illegal??

If you can provide a link to something that covers this I would LOVE to have documentation that an interstate transaction has an implied warranty.

Otherwise I'm calling BS to the statement that the warranty is in fact illegal. If I can be proven wrong I will gladly say so!!

[Biggles]

What Statute states this is illegal??

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, if I'm not mistaken.

But are you saying (just let's get this straight, now, for the record) that you think that this disgusting business practice is reasonable? So you would buy from such a firm?

Ah! Of course, you work for them!

[Dragonman]

No I do NOT work for them, and I definitely don't condone poor customer service such as this. My position is simply that the OP agreed to the terms... BUYER BEWARE.

[mdavis]

... I would LOVE to have documentation that an interstate transaction has an implied warranty.
...

All interstate transactions carry with them the implied warranty of merchantibility and, potentially, of fitness for a particular purpose. That a transaction is interstate does not render it immune to state laws. The only legal problem is never WHETHER state law applies (it always does) but WHICH state law. There may be additional federal remedies, of course, but they do not supsersede the state claims. And it's the U.C.C. So there's your law.