Buy Qudelix 5K in Europe (Hifi-passion.de)

[lvau]

Certainly, they did offer that option; however, they had already informed me beforehand that they don't consider it a defect but rather my own issue. Furthermore, they stated that if they find no problem, I would be charged a service fee. Now, let's speculate on the outcome if I were to return the item when they have already precluded any defects in their opinion. It doesn't require much imagination, I believe.

In addition, I've requested a return label twice, but they haven't sent me one. It's worth noting that in warranty cases, the seller is responsible for covering the return costs. Regardless, this experience has taught me not to purchase from such small retailers in the future. I'll stick with Amazon from now on, as it's a much more efficient process to obtain a refund when faced with such issues. In my view, the complaints of small businesses about Amazon harming their trade are largely due to situations like this - and they don´t deserve any better with such service, to be honest.

 

[Snoopy]

I went through exactly the same thing with a Nvidia GPU about 15 years ago... Local retailer.. return for a checkup with a technician and service fee here and there.

I doubt a local retailer or small online shop will offer Amazon like return conditions. And even Amazon got alot worse regarding these things. Especially if you are a "difficult" customer that returns things often.

 

[markanini]

Certainly, they did offer that option; however, they had already informed me beforehand that they don't consider it a defect but rather my own issue. Furthermore, they stated that if they find no problem, I would be charged a service fee. Now, let's speculate on the outcome if I were to return the item when they have already precluded any defects in their opinion. It doesn't require much imagination, I believe.

In addition, I've requested a return label twice, but they haven't sent me one. It's worth noting that in warranty cases, the seller is responsible for covering the return costs. Regardless, this experience has taught me not to purchase from such small retailers in the future. I'll stick with Amazon from now on, as it's a much more efficient process to obtain a refund when faced with such issues. In my view, the complaints of small businesses about Amazon harming their trade are largely due to situations like this - and they don´t deserve any better with such service, to be honest.

They refuse to acknowledge the fault due to not seeing the product first hand? Or regardless of seeing the product first hand or not?

 

[lvau]

Indeed, that's precisely why I refrain from purchasing outside of Amazon whenever possible. Personally, I don't consider myself a demanding customer, as Amazon has never declined a refund when I could substantiate my case. The regulations in Germany are quite explicit in this regard, and Amazon adheres to them. I can't speak for their practices in other countries, though.

 

[lvau]

They refuse to acknowledge the fault due to not seeing the product first hand? Or regardless of seeing the product first hand or not?

I've produced a video outlining the problem for them (please refer to my earlier posts), and I've also reached out to Shanling, who confirmed that the issue stems from their player software's incompatibility with certain Bluetooth devices and have provided these E-mails to NT Global Distribution too. However, NT Global Distribution, not only did not provide a shipping label but also disputes that the problem originates from the player itself already now, despite the video and the reply by Shanling. This is in spite of the manufacturer acknowledging via email that it is indeed a player-related issue. Instead, they appear to insist that I bear the cost of return shipping and may even impose a service fee if they determine there is no fault with the player, a stance they've taken in their prior emails. It should be quite evident where this would lead if I were to return the item under these conditions, wouldn't it?

 

[markanini]

I've produced a video outlining the problem for them (please refer to my earlier posts), and I've also reached out to Shanling, who confirmed that the issue stems from their player software's incompatibility with certain Bluetooth devices and have provided these E-mails to NT Global Distribution too. However, NT Global Distribution, not only did not provide a shipping label but also disputes that the problem originates from the player itself already now, despite the video and the reply by Shanling. This is in spite of the manufacturer acknowledging via email that it is indeed a player-related issue. Instead, they appear to insist that I bear the cost of return shipping and may even impose a service fee if they determine there is no fault with the player, a stance they've taken in their prior emails. It should be quite evident where this would lead if I were to return the item under these conditions, wouldn't it?

If they outright refused returns, or refused acknowledging faults beforehand then it's unlawful. But they way you put it sound like reading between the lines. How can you be certain that the courts will make the same conclusion? Also, did your counsellor advise you against public discourse on an ongoing case? If not maybe he's not that certain about the strength of your case, sorry to bring you bad news.

 

[lvau]

There's no need to delve into subtle implications; their stance is unequivocally stated in their email where they assert that, in their opinion, there is no issue with the player. Consequently, returning it at this juncture would likely yield no results, given their clear declaration that the problem does not originate from the player, in stark contrast to the manufacturer, Shanling, who affirms it is an issue with their product.

Fortunately, I have legal insurance, and I can confidently say that I am working alongside two experienced lawyers on this case. They affirm that the situation aligns with German consumer rights laws and is not open to misinterpretation. They have also emphasized that if the manufacturer acknowledges it's a fault with their device (which I have in written emails from Shanling), then it is illogical for the retailer/seller to claim it is not a device issue. The manufacturer created the product, and if they confirm it's a fault with their device, then it unequivocally is. Consequently, the seller cannot rectify it and must, as mandated by law, accept the return and issue a refund in accordance with German consumer law. This is particularly relevant because it's only been three months, and it is their responsibility to prove that nothing is wrong, not mine to prove that something is amiss (a characteristic of German law that I greatly appreciate). I will provide an update on the case's progress once it enters the legal process.

 

[markanini]

There's no need to delve into subtle implications; their stance is unequivocally stated in their email where they assert that, in their opinion, there is no issue with the player. Consequently, returning it at this juncture would likely yield no results, given their clear declaration that the problem does not originate from the player, in stark contrast to the manufacturer, Shanling, who affirms it is an issue with their product.

Fortunately, I have legal insurance, and I can confidently say that I am working alongside two experienced lawyers on this case. They affirm that the situation aligns with German consumer rights laws and is not open to misinterpretation. They have also emphasized that if the manufacturer acknowledges it's a fault with their device (which I have in written emails from Shanling), then it is illogical for the retailer/seller to claim it is not a device issue. The manufacturer created the product, and if they confirm it's a fault with their device, then it unequivocally is. Consequently, the seller cannot rectify it and must, as mandated by law, accept the return and issue a refund in accordance with German consumer law. This is particularly relevant because it's only been three months, and it is their responsibility to prove that nothing is wrong, not mine to prove that something is amiss (a characteristic of German law that I greatly appreciate). I will provide an update on the case's progress once it enters the legal process.

The seller offered you the option of sending the product in. At the same time your stance is that they refused acknowledging faults. This is how you've told your story. Surely that begs a few questions, but you just act aloof about it. You insist that you want to warn other consumers, and you insist that you have a strong legal case. There are better ways to present your situation, you probably know this deep down, even if you are putting on a face in this thread.

And if you took time to think about it, you would accept that engaging in public discourse, like you have, before everything is finalized, is ill advised. That's how someone without legal assistance, or low certainty of their case operates. I'm wishing you the best of luck but I think the smartest thing for any onlooker is to not takes stories like yours on face value, even if I made that mistake. Because, there's too much that can be left out, even information to the benefit of you and other consumers, when only listening to one side. That's simply the human condition.

 

[lvau]

I appreciate your perspective on this matter, and I understand that the way I've presented my situation may raise questions. Let me clarify a few points:
Firstly, while the seller did offer the option of sending the product in for evaluation, it's essential to consider the context. They have explicitly stated that they believe there is no issue with the player based on their initial assessment, even after viewing the video evidence and the manufacturer's confirmation of a problem. Given this stance, I have concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of this process.

Regarding my intention to share this experience with other consumers, it's not about acting aloof but rather about raising awareness. My aim is to inform others about the challenges I've faced and the potential pitfalls they might encounter when dealing with similar situations. It's important to remember that every case is unique, and while my experience may not be identical to others, it can serve as a cautionary tale.

As for engaging in public discourse before the resolution is finalized, you make a valid point. However, this forum provides a platform for individuals to share their experiences and seek advice from a community that may have faced similar challenges. While I have sought legal assistance and have confidence in my case, I also value the input and perspectives of others who may have insights or advice to offer.

I appreciate your well-wishes and acknowledge the importance of not taking stories at face value. You're right; there's always the potential for information to be omitted or misunderstood when hearing only one side of the story. I encourage everyone to gather as much information as possible and consider multiple perspectives when forming their own opinions on matters like these. Thank you for engaging in this discussion, and I hope that my experience can serve as a point of reflection for others facing similar situations.