Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-17-2020, 05:29 PM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,916
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Status update:

I got a call from the store I'd bought the lens from telling me that they want me to pay $600 plus some odd dollars to get the lens fixed - they probably got that from Precision acting as Ricoh's agent and think they're doing me a favor by acting as liason between me and Ricoh.

So I'm going to be giving the store a notice of revocation of acceptance letter and telling them to keep their lens. (Revocation of acceptance is a "purchaser's remedy" provision under "sales of goods" in the Uniform Commercial Code.) Then I'm going to file suit against Ricoh. Of course I'll be adding in the damages from the prior adventures with the previously-purchased-and-returned 560mm. That on top of another item they refused to fix under warranty on a different occasion.

That does it for me. I won't be buying any more products from Pentax, and I expect to get treble damages plus attorneys' fees, court costs and interest on the total pursuant to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. They messed with the wrong lawyer.
Wow! Not sure where to begin and sorry for your problems. Here in the US after sales support is a dying art. Nikon is closing all but two of their repair facilities and I think such stories are just an indication of what is down the road. Companies are more and more totally detached from their customers as they farm out sales and after sales support to third party companies. The one time much touted "Three legged stool" of employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and shareholder satisfaction has been replaced by a single legged stool called CEO satisfaction. Quarterly bonuses rule the day.

01-17-2020, 06:05 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,634
I wonder if the $600+ for the "repair" is for shipping to/from Japan + Precision's overhead.

Unfortunately, with many products the cost of shipping for warranty work is not covered.
01-18-2020, 02:24 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
brewmaster15's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: CT
Posts: 957
This really is disturbing. Im sorry to hear about the problems with the 560. It makes me think twice about purchasing that lens.
QuoteQuote:
Not likely they'll replace it - it's not a well-capitalized operation, a small mom-and-pop kind of operation; I think the one I bought from them was the only one they've had in stock for more than a year,
I do have a question though on this $600 charge.You mentioned the store was a small mom and pop shop . Is it possible they are not a true pentax authorized dealer and that your warranty was not good with pentax as a result? It just seems odd the way this has been handled. Maybe contact Pentax and verify they even know about this case?Just a suggestion.

AL
01-18-2020, 02:33 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 476
I had the same issue on my first Fa77. This however may happen everywhre. The construction in general seems fine to me.

01-18-2020, 04:13 AM   #35
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Does the store have power of attorney to submit your lens to Precision for warranty service?
Steve
and

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I wonder if the $600+ for the "repair" is for shipping to/from Japan + Precision's overhead.

Unfortunately, with many products the cost of shipping for warranty work is not covered.
I'm treating that as a non-issue; I returned the lens to the seller who was given an opportunity to cure the defect. Once I gave it back to him, it's up to him to get it done right; whether he chose to have returned it to Precision as Ricoh's agent or to Ricoh as his supplier directly is beyond my control. That is to say, I'm treating my return of the lens to the seller as an aspect of my relation to the seller in the transaction, and not enlisting the seller as my agent for dealing with Ricoh. Any attempt on my part to control what he does to cure the defect would be inconsistent with my legal position.

True as to the warranty's exclusion of shipping costs, but thus far I have had no contact with Ricoh about the warranty issue. Having had prior experience with Ricoh, I decided to buy the lens from a local dealer precisely so I wouldn't have to deal with Ricoh - got a local guy on the hook.

QuoteOriginally posted by brewmaster15 Quote
This really is disturbing. Im sorry to hear about the problems with the 560. It makes me think twice about purchasing that lens.

I do have a question though on this $600 charge.You mentioned the store was a small mom and pop shop . Is it possible they are not a true pentax authorized dealer and that your warranty was not good with pentax as a result? It just seems odd the way this has been handled. Maybe contact Pentax and verify they even know about this case?Just a suggestion.

AL
This store is the only authorized Pentax dealer in Northern Virginia. I'm guessing that after this one, they'll stop dealing with Ricoh. And as I've already stated, I won't be buying any more Pentax products. When the stuff I got dies, that's it for me. Too many problems - I like the products and the engineering but it's just too much trouble to deal with 'em. Much cheaper in terms of my time and trouble just to go ahead and spring the bucks for competitor's products.

QuoteOriginally posted by WorksAsIntended Quote
I had the same issue on my first Fa77. This however may happen everywhre. The construction in general seems fine to me.
Sorry, I didn't quite understand that. This is a big, heavy lens; If the fine threads on the tiny screws are not sufficient to withstand semi-automated assembly and distribution when placed in whatever that retaining ring is made of (I think it's plastic), I think that's a defect in engineering, design, materials AND workmanship. Since I'm old enough to remember when most consumer products were made in the U.S. to fairly high standards, I may have different expectations about the junk that's being sold today. For example, I just recently got rid of a refrigerator that was made in about 1965, that worked fine for all this time, though I think most of those models probably lasted around thirty years (I got the good one). Now it seems you're lucky if a refrigerator actually makes it past the one-year warranty. We get junk because we're willing to accept junk.
01-18-2020, 04:24 AM - 1 Like   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 476
We get "junk" because we expect way more complex features, extremly high efficiency and prices like in the days we bought simple engineered stuff.
The example here was faulty, most are not. So I consider it at the level you can expect for the price paid. You may think differently about this.

I got an ice cream maker bought by my grand father back in 1963, produced in my country.
This thing still works like on the first day, yet it consumes more power than my washing mashine.
It is open for discussion, if you can call this old machine superiour to modern ones, I do not.
01-18-2020, 10:35 AM - 2 Likes   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,634
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
I'm treating that as a non-issue; I returned the lens to the seller who was given an opportunity to cure the defect. Once I gave it back to him, it's up to him to get it done right; whether he chose to have returned it to Precision as Ricoh's agent or to Ricoh as his supplier directly is beyond my control. That is to say, I'm treating my return of the lens to the seller as an aspect of my relation to the seller in the transaction, and not enlisting the seller as my agent for dealing with Ricoh. Any attempt on my part to control what he does to cure the defect would be inconsistent with my legal position.

True as to the warranty's exclusion of shipping costs, but thus far I have had no contact with Ricoh about the warranty issue. Having had prior experience with Ricoh, I decided to buy the lens from a local dealer precisely so I wouldn't have to deal with Ricoh - got a local guy on the hook.
It was just some musing on my part, given that I have purchased large lenses from Japan and the shipping is very expensive. The other parties involved likely think they are not failing in their obligations in any way. I've seen situations that are somewhat akin to yours that have been resolved with the consumer receiving a new lens, but the process was rather anxiety-inducing and I certainly don't blame you one iota for being ticked off at Ricoh and soured on the Pentax brand.

If I were your local camera store owner, a single circumstance like this plus the scarcity of Pentax users would possibly lead me to dropping Pentax altogether, simply to avoid a future headache and diminished reputation as collateral damage from Precision's/Ricoh's "service".

Anyway, it's a genuine shame you've had to go through this, it must be tremendously frustrating.
01-18-2020, 11:12 AM - 1 Like   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Spring Branch, Tx
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 555
QuoteOriginally posted by WorksAsIntended Quote
We get "junk" because we expect way more complex features, extremly high efficiency and prices like in the days we bought simple engineered stuff.
The example here was faulty, most are not. So I consider it at the level you can expect for the price paid. You may think differently about this.

I got an ice cream maker bought by my grand father back in 1963, produced in my country.
This thing still works like on the first day, yet it consumes more power than my washing mashine.
It is open for discussion, if you can call this old machine superiour to modern ones, I do not.
A $5,000.00 lens should not fall apart in the center due to stripped fasteners. No one should demand shipping for a warranty item, let alone $600.00 for shipping. That is the level I would expect for the price paid! Ricoh needs to just replace ( or repair at their option) this lens unless they can prove that the owner and a friend tugged on both ends to sever the darn thing. Is this what we can expect for any warranty claims on the K new about to be released within the next year? Wonderful.....

01-18-2020, 11:18 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 476
No argue that the service provided was very bad and wrong.
This is not the first time we see something like this with this brand and propably not the last time either. It sadly is a bitter truth that the refuse many repairs that should be part of waranty (thinking about a completly decentered 16-85 and defective wheel on a battery grip in my case and a sdm failure a friend of mine had to suffer from).
But the way it turned to the general construction being bad discussion, I cannot agree on that.
If you want even better quality in general, you will be paying tripple the prices you pay now, at least.

Last edited by WorksAsIntended; 01-18-2020 at 11:26 AM.
01-18-2020, 12:48 PM   #40
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,151
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
I returned the lens to the seller who was given an opportunity to cure the defect. Once I gave it back to him, it's up to him to get it done right;
Your theory is intriguing, either that, or I am confused. Are you revoking acceptance based on inadequate remedy* from the seller in regards to the original sale of an item that proved defective after light use? If so, shouldn't you be suing them rather than Ricoh?

In any case, I am curious as to how all this shakes out as well as why Ricoh refused to honor the warranty.


Steve

* You were presented with a quote for repair rather than a fixed lens, new lens, or a full refund of purchase price.
01-19-2020, 03:20 AM - 1 Like   #41
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Your theory is intriguing, either that, or I am confused. Are you revoking acceptance based on inadequate remedy* from the seller in regards to the original sale of an item that proved defective after light use? If so, shouldn't you be suing them rather than Ricoh?

In any case, I am curious as to how all this shakes out as well as why Ricoh refused to honor the warranty.


Steve

* You were presented with a quote for repair rather than a fixed lens, new lens, or a full refund of purchase price.
Yup. Hidden defect. Paragraph 1(b) in the statute quoted below.

I don't actually have a contract with Ricoh; my remedy as to them would be under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Enforcement Act, which obviates lack of privity as a defense. My contract is with the seller who impliedly warranted that the product was fit for the purpose for which it was intended and merchantable.

I'll be interested to find out if Ricoh's got a "reason", myself. I'll go talk to the store owner this morning, and let y'all know what I can find out.

But you're right. I still like that guy, and so it's not "just business". But I'd been going to him because he was the only Pentax dealer for miles and miles (and it takes me an hour to drive to his place). There are scads of camera stores around here (who are willing to match B&H/Adorama prices), so it wouldn't kill me to alienate him, given that, well, here's a hint - I spent yesterday morning researching the differences between the Nikon D850 and the Canon EOS 5Ds R.

But it was, after all, Ricoh that's screwing up here, and I really don't want to mess with the local store. So I've decided that I'm going to spring the bucks for the repair; after all, I have experience with Precision that tells me that what I'll get back will be better than any units that just left the factory. Until it fell apart, it was a good lens, and I'm convinced that the problem was due to bad assembly, and not something that happened during shipping (it did arrive well packaged). So my local state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Warranty Enforcement Act, my state's got a "long arm statute" providing personal jurisdiction, and venue is proper where the item was sold. It'll cost Ricoh more to show up and defend than the case will be worth.

(And, as to the class-action idea, I don't care for the federal courts, Virginia doesn't have a class-action authorizing statute, I've never done one, and haven't read the FRCP in years and years. If someone who knows about that stuff wants to do one, I'll be a titular plaintiff. I don't know if this issue rises to the level of mesothelioma, or talc-induced cancer, though.)

-----

UCC 2-608 as enacted in Virginia:

Revocation of acceptance in whole or in part. —

(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it

(a) on the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or

(b) without discovery of such nonconformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.
=====

Last edited by dlh; 01-19-2020 at 03:30 AM.
01-19-2020, 05:38 AM - 1 Like   #42
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,388
Original Poster
Here's another issue, since I've been forced to think in "lawyer mode" a bit: Nikon's famous for refusing any service as to "gray market" products, and Ricoh won't honor the warranty unless you can provide a receipt showing sale by an "authorized dealer". Smacks of a conspiracy in restraint of trade, unlawful under antitrust statutes, to me. I'm reminded of the issue some years back in which auto repair shops were excluded from access to shop manuals and special tools unless they were "authorized dealers". I think the camera mfgrs.' restrictions are illegal. As to the purchaser, I'm thinking my argument would be something like this: "Canikon/Pentax put this product into the stream of commerce intending it to be sold to an end-user. The end-user has no duty or responsibility to check to see whether a particular store is an "authorized dealer", much less to know of any restrictions in the "shrink-wrapped" limited warranty, the terms of which he can't know unless and until he buys the product and opens the box. Why should the average consumer have any idea what "gray market" even means or to know anything about the arrangements, or lack thereof, between the retail seller and the manufacturer?

Then, I was thinking, Ok, so the mfgr. disclaims the warranty as to a "gray market" product. At that point, there being, in effect, no warranty at all by the mfgr., it becomes a products liability issue. Then the "economic loss rule" kicks in: since the consumer is not in privity of contract with the manufacturer, the only basis of liability for "purely economic losses" (for some reason, courts use the term, "economic" to mean "financial", even though those terms are not synonyms) would be in contract, not tort. But there is no contract, so how does that make any sense at all? Simple: the rule was created by the attorneys who represent manufacturers fairly recently in order to reverse the possibility of products liability suits. If there is no damage to person or property, and no "limited warranty", there's no way to sue a manufacturer for damage to the equipment that was the subject of the transaction. We're back to Eighteenth Century "your only recourse is against the dealer who sold it to you" rules (which had gone away because of the stupidity and expense of the chain of litigation such rules created).
01-20-2020, 05:55 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Florida swamps
Posts: 560
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
Here's another issue, since I've been forced to think in "lawyer mode" a bit: Nikon's famous for refusing any service as to "gray market" products, and Ricoh won't honor the warranty unless you can provide a receipt showing sale by an "authorized dealer". Smacks of a conspiracy in restraint of trade, unlawful under antitrust statutes, to me. I'm reminded of the issue some years back in which auto repair shops were excluded from access to shop manuals and special tools unless they were "authorized dealers". I think the camera mfgrs.' restrictions are illegal. As to the purchaser, I'm thinking my argument would be something like this: "Canikon/Pentax put this product into the stream of commerce intending it to be sold to an end-user. The end-user has no duty or responsibility to check to see whether a particular store is an "authorized dealer", much less to know of any restrictions in the "shrink-wrapped" limited warranty, the terms of which he can't know unless and until he buys the product and opens the box. Why should the average consumer have any idea what "gray market" even means or to know anything about the arrangements, or lack thereof, between the retail seller and the manufacturer?

Then, I was thinking, Ok, so the mfgr. disclaims the warranty as to a "gray market" product. At that point, there being, in effect, no warranty at all by the mfgr., it becomes a products liability issue. Then the "economic loss rule" kicks in: since the consumer is not in privity of contract with the manufacturer, the only basis of liability for "purely economic losses" (for some reason, courts use the term, "economic" to mean "financial", even though those terms are not synonyms) would be in contract, not tort. But there is no contract, so how does that make any sense at all? Simple: the rule was created by the attorneys who represent manufacturers fairly recently in order to reverse the possibility of products liability suits. If there is no damage to person or property, and no "limited warranty", there's no way to sue a manufacturer for damage to the equipment that was the subject of the transaction. We're back to Eighteenth Century "your only recourse is against the dealer who sold it to you" rules (which had gone away because of the stupidity and expense of the chain of litigation such rules created).
Did you determine that the store was not an authorized dealer after all?

Not saying it is right or wrong, but the practice of denying warranty on equipment sold via gray market is not uncommon. In the IT industry Iíve seen it happen numerous time with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. In IT the practice is justified based on battling counterfeit gear, which is a real problem in IT. Probably not so much in cameras though.
01-20-2020, 06:22 AM   #44
dlh
F.O.G. (fat old geezer)
Loyal Site Supporter
dlh's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Northern Piedmont of Virginia
Posts: 1,388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by simple1 Quote
Did you determine that the store was not an authorized dealer after all?

Not saying it is right or wrong, but the practice of denying warranty on equipment sold via gray market is not uncommon. In the IT industry Iíve seen it happen numerous time with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. In IT the practice is justified based on battling counterfeit gear, which is a real problem in IT. Probably not so much in cameras though.
No, I determined that the dealer is, in fact, an authorized dealer. But this problem is Ricoh's fault, not the dealer, who's been very decent about everything and whom I regard as an innocent victim of Ricoh's nonsense as well. If I sue the dealer, then the dealer's got to sue Ricoh (as the dealers' supplier). Not much point in that, and I hate to put the dealer through that wringer.

By the way, my dealer advised me that some things you may buy from B&H and Adorama are "gray market" products. He said there's some way to tell the difference on their websites, but unless you know to check, you may buy something that will not be warranted at all. Makes sense to me, since I know from my own experience that B&H resells returned merchandise as new, and sometimes refuses to refund for products returned.
01-20-2020, 04:28 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Florida swamps
Posts: 560
QuoteOriginally posted by dlh Quote
No, I determined that the dealer is, in fact, an authorized dealer. But this problem is Ricoh's fault, not the dealer, who's been very decent about everything and whom I regard as an innocent victim of Ricoh's nonsense as well. If I sue the dealer, then the dealer's got to sue Ricoh (as the dealers' supplier). Not much point in that, and I hate to put the dealer through that wringer.

By the way, my dealer advised me that some things you may buy from B&H and Adorama are "gray market" products. He said there's some way to tell the difference on their websites, but unless you know to check, you may buy something that will not be warranted at all. Makes sense to me, since I know from my own experience that B&H resells returned merchandise as new, and sometimes refuses to refund for products returned.
Got it.

I would be interesting to know what the $600 charge was based on and why warranty did not cover it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
forum, lens, pentax lenses, pentax service, repair, screws, service, threads, warranty
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jupiter 21m-200mm blocks light and stripped screw help. chrisliaskonis Maintenance and Repair Articles 18 03-28-2018 01:01 PM
Eye-Fi Card Falling Apart On Me EarlVonTapia Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 06-13-2013 11:09 AM
Optio WG1 Tripod Mount Threads Stripped nomad2906 Pentax Compact Cameras 2 05-24-2012 09:01 AM
Question EXIF Stripped From Attachments Parallax Site Suggestions and Help 13 09-30-2011 12:32 PM
Sigma 1.4 tc. stripped Screws garyk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 09-17-2010 12:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top