[stihlmania]

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.....

[WorksAsIntended]

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.

[stevebrot]

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.

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 Unregistered User; 01-19-2020 at 03:30 AM.

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).

[simple1]

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 I’ve 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.

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 I’ve 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.

[simple1]

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.

Got it.

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

Me, too. I went in on Sunday and plunked down the cash demanded, and I asked the guy why it wasn't covered, whether they''d gotten any information about that. He replied that they had not, and didn't have a clue. I think I mentioned already that the guy I spoke with first about it had observed the same symptoms that I did (stripped screws) and observed at that time that there were no signs or evidence of impact on the lens.

While I was there, I happened to pick up a Canon 5DS R and a couple of lenses to go on it. Good "instant rebates" on Canon lenses at the moment, by the way.

[aslyfox]

is it possible the shop sold you a " grey market " lens without you knowing

that would explain why no warranty

if I understand it correctly, how did Precision - Ricoh determine that the damage to the lens was caused by something not covered by the warranty

has it been examined by them ?

[WorksAsIntended]

Well, Ricoh propably did not do themselves a favour there.

is it possible the shop sold you a " grey market " lens without you knowing

that would explain why no warranty

if I understand it correctly, how did Precision - Ricoh determine that the damage to the lens was caused by something not covered by the warranty

has it been examined by them ?

Interesting theory, though the lens came with all the same Ricoh stuff all my other lenses came with, box, papers, serial number etc. Seems like it would be more expensive to fake a lens like that than it would be worth. I still think some VietNamese lady's electronic screwdriver over-torqued the screws and no one was paying attention. When I was "quality control manager" for a software company, I used to joke about how it was necessary to keep that quality under control; can't let quality run rampant. (Their idea was that, when you sell the product to a customer, that's "beta-testing".)

My assumption is that the dealer sent the thing to Precision. They haven't given the dealer any information as to why Ricoh refused to honor the warranty.

[aslyfox]

Interesting theory, though the lens came with all the same Ricoh stuff all my other lenses came with, box, papers, serial number etc. Seems like it would be more expensive to fake a lens like that than it would be worth. I still think some VietNamese lady's electronic screwdriver over-torqued the screws and no one was paying attention. When I was "quality control manager" for a software company, I used to joke about how it was necessary to keep that quality under control; can't let quality run rampant. (Their idea was that, when you sell the product to a customer, that's "beta-testing".)

My assumption is that the dealer sent the thing to Precision. They haven't given the dealer any information as to why Ricoh refused to honor the warranty.

it may be an authentic Pentax but for some reason sold without warranty

are you sure they are an authorized seller ?

perhaps they obtained it, some how from a third party, and not through Ricoh

more research needed ?

I cannot understand why it wouldn't be considered warranty work if I understand the situation correctly

[brewmaster15]

I certainly am not at all qualified on the legal aspects of this issue but theres somethings that bothers me.

That ricoh refused warranty for what ever reason when it sounds like they should have repaired it is troublesome.We want to have faith in our chosen manufacturer that they will back up their products.That is important as once that faith is gone we begin exploring other more reliable brands.

But what really bothers me here isnt Ricoh. Its the store that sold the lens. Dlh bought the lens from them.. paid them, not Ricoh. The store has an obligation to their customer to make this right if they want to keep a good customer. I own a business that does retail sales. Sometimes as a seller you have to take a loss to keep a good customer. It all comes down to customer service... Dlh stated they had a good relationship with the store and presumably has bought alot from them... all the more reason for the store to have stepped up on this. The Op is right to be angry with Ricoh here but honestly if it were me I would never spend a dime again with that store...

The other thing I would do is send the lens directly to precision and get a quote directly from them. There really isnt a reason to have the store involved at all if its warranty work... or if its not warranty work .

Just my thoughts.

AL

it may be an authentic Pentax but for some reason sold without warranty

are you sure they are an authorized seller ?

Ricoh/Pentax website reports that they are authorized. That's how I found the store in the first place.

perhaps they obtained it, some how from a third party, and not through Ricoh

more research needed ?

Possible, if that's the case I'll nail 'em for the misrepresentation.

I cannot understand why it wouldn't be considered warranty work if I understand the situation correctly

Me neither, too. Not my first such experience with Ricoh, though.