Ethics as it pertains to returning broken stuff

Wouldnt you feel fucked if you had to spend another 400dollars after little more than a year because your x360 broke and you dont have any warranty? I dont know, but if I buy a 400dollar product I expect it to last atleast a year or 4, not just over 1 year. Now nice laws make sure you have to spend another 400dollar on a new console but I would do the same as the kid did. Im not gonna spend another 400dollars on a product that shouldnt have died after just 1 year.

Sure he is wrong for returning a other model, he shouldnt have done that. But I dont think he is wrong for tried not to get ripped of by MS for making a faulty product.

 

What ever happened to consumers speaking with their wallets? I didn't like MS's warranty and is one reason I didn't buy one. On the other hand as much as I don't like Nintendo's current market strategy they will always have a warm spot for replacing my GCN. Back to the 360... they have a 1 year warranty now and are refunding all past clients who paid for repairs. And for those who have a broken 360 after warranty it costs like $130 to repair. I don't know many US elecontrics that offer really long warranties and know of few (if any) that will repair a product for a fraction of the units costs after the warranty period. Obviously there have been some 360 production issues, but on the reverse people do some harsh stuff to their consoles--as well as stupid like using on carpet, smoking in their house, dropping it, and so forth.

But the bottom line is if you don't like the terms of ownership don't buy it. I do this all the time with software and choose to support companies with policies I like. Likewise hardware, especially stuff like GPUs. And on the console front, based on history, picking up an early / launch unit without an instore warranty usually isn't a good idea. They pack a ton of stuff into the units and are rushed to market. They are much more prone to defect. Part of the risks of early adopting.

 

The problem as a lot of other people have already said is that it's not just Microsoft that he's diddling. It's Costco and every other consumer that is getting fucked over because he felt he was hard done by.

If I ran the world people like him wouldn't lead very happy lives.

 

1) I would feel unlucky. Shit happens, and it's going to happen to you sooner or later.
2) I am not an idiot, so instead of trashing the broken one and spending $400 on a new one, I'd have it repaired for much less.

Would that include fradulently helping yourself to an upgrade as well, or just the unethical and fraudlent swapping of like models?

 

NO! the problem starts and ends with warranty laws. Its bullshit that if your 400dollar x360 dies on you after only 3 months you have to buy a new one or pay big bucks to get it repaired. Electronics should work for a resaneble amount of time. Wich in my opinion is atleast 3 years. Luckily we have laws like that in holland so that almost everything you buy here has atleast 2 or 3 years of warranty no matter what the manufacter gives you.

The swapping was wrong but the returning not. And its not unethical. What is unethical are laws protecting big companies at the cost of the consumers.

 

If you don't agree with the warranty offered, don't buy the product, or buy an extended warranty. IMO doing something you know is unlawful because you don't like the company or the laws involved, and think that you are above them because they aren't "fair" is unethical. Perhaps you could argue that it is just illegal, not unethical... maybe there is a little grey area there, but in this case I don't think what he did was in that grey area if it even exists. X360 is a luxury item, you have no God given right to have one, and if you don't like the terms that come with the purchase of a luxury item, go buy a different one.

 

That is such a lame argument. Only used if people cant think of anything better to defend their arguments.

If you buy a 30k car and after 6 months the engine blows up because of a manufactur error would you just happily spend another 10k on getting it running again because the law states you only get 3 months of warranty? Ofcourse you wont. You will feel screwed and not prepaired to spend 10k because a car engine isnt supposed to blow up after 6 months. Just as a xbox360 isnt supposed to die within 2 or 3 years.

 

I wouldn't spend 30k on a car if it only had 6 months warranty. If you would then you deserve for it to blow up after 7 months. Not liking a law doesn't give you the right to break it.

 

I hate Microsoft for obvious reasons, so I'd give that kid a medal. Fraud or not, the b-tards deserved it if only for the aches I had with Win95 and 98, let alone DOS. Actually I'd like a refund on those and some additional money for my sufferings caused by their awful products.

 

I give up!

 

As for the car comparison, my 8 years old C-Class got some rust on the trunk door and it's just getting replaced - for free. That's a proper customer service.

 

I have no idea how long the warranty lasts on new cars in the usa but you would also expect a product like x360 to have atleast 2 or 3 years of warranty so who knows cars might not have long warranty either.

And its not about not liking a law, its about a law not protecting consumers enough. And if that is the case I dont think there is anything wrong with breaking it. Sure, its not nice and some big corporations might lose a couple of bucks over it. Well I dont care. If I buy something expansive as a x360 I expect it to work a couple of years and if thats not the case im not gonna spend a cent on getting it repaired. Screw the company, let them pay for selling me a bad product instead of letting me pay the company twice for selling me a bad product.

 

Anyway, I love to see the different view on ethics between the anglo-american (ok, Aussies too) people here and all the rest...quite a different grasp on the matter.
No offence meant but, once more, I feel and think that the "anglo-american" point of view ends up in what the ancient Romans already understood: "Summum ius...summa iniuria".

 

It isn't an argument, it's a principle of free market economics. Get over yourself.

You would be an idiot for buying something that expensive with that short of a warranty when other options exist.

Says who? A certain percentage are, in all stastical likelihood, going to die just after the warranty expires, no matter how long that is. And whoever owns one of them is going to feel like they got the short end of the stick. Before spending your money on a luxury item that is a choice, frivilous purchase, have enough brains to look at the warranty and think about whether you can accept a failed unit and the cost of repairs if you are one of the unlucky stastics.

 

I would not have bought the car because I actually read and would have realized "wow, that's a very small warranty, maybe I should look at a dealer with a longer one or look into the extended options if the car is still a good deal". Of course apparently this does not course peoples minds to me.

Your job as a consumer is to know what you are getting into. Its not the laws job to make up for your stupidity. You are very stupid if you spent 30K on a car with such a short warranty, just as you are stupid if you switch a non working Xbox 360 in for a working one in the fashion as this person did, not to mention stealing it.

 

The kids a thief. Out of warranty your on your own.

 

No time to read the whole thread, but it's fraud, pure and simple. Product dies out of warranty then you repair/replace it on your own. It's right up there with returning overclocked/fried parts the same way.

That's why I would have bought it at Costco THE FIRST TIME!!

Sheesh.

 

Dickus en skry you dont understand what my point is. My point is that a expensive item like xbox360 should last for a reasonable time and if they dont they should be replaced for free. Everything below one year isnt a reasonable time for a product like xbox360, I think that is something everyone will agree with. So the problem is not the kid, the real problem are the laws that dont protect consumers enough against companies selling a faulty product.

 

Hence it's okay to commit fraud and steal?
The real problem might also be the kid fried the thing or dropped it from abuse.
Short warranties suck but you end them buy not buying - not be stealing.

 

I understand your point perfectly, I simply do not agree with it or at least in these terms. I believe that products should all include at least a one year warranty where applicable, but because that is not the case at this time in the US (mind you, competition tends to make this unimportant and also consumer awareness, products with short warranties are passed up for those with longer) does not give this person any room for stealing. I believe in the market a consumer votes with their money, if a product has what you feel a unreasonably short warranty then simply do not buy it. If you however do buy it then you are committed to your end of the deal. This person clearly did not hold up their end.