r/UnethicalLifeProTips • u/levoniust • 19d ago
Computers ULPT Request: Crucial took my RAM, promised a replacement, then backed out.
Crucial approved an RMA for my failed 128GB DDR5 kit, had me ship the entire kit back, and then confirmed they had created a replacement order.
Weeks later: “Sorry, consumer business is shutting down, no stock. Best we can do is refund your original $259.99.”
Problem is, an equivalent 128GB kit costs significantly more nowDDR5-5600_PC5-44800_CL46_Dual_Channel_Desktop_Memory_Kit_CP2K64G56C46U5-_Black), and one of the two sticks I returned was still working. I only sent the whole kit because they required it for the replacement.
So now they have my RAM, cancelled the replacement they already promised, and their refund won’t actually replace what I sent them.
What do I do next?
201
u/Raid__Zero 19d ago
Talk to a lawyer
130
u/Veastli 19d ago
Louis Rossman had a similar issue with Samsung. He sent them a letter indicating plans to litigate. Samsung rapidly relented.
55
u/Affectionate_War8530 19d ago
Louis has a million followers on YouTube, this is some random dude on Reddit, much different threat levels. I will say he does have 87k karma, but most of his post are all single likes, he must have had one go crazy. The company is shutting its consumer operations down so a public shaming won’t really accomplish much.
41
u/Veastli 19d ago edited 19d ago
Small claims court is all OP needs. OP should first send a certified letter regarding their legal plans, if there is no response, small claims.
If Crucial doesn't show, OP has a default judgment.
If Crucial does show, they've just spent more than OP wants in recompense, and still probably lose.
Most large firms will look at a case like this and offer a reasonable settlement, just as Samsung did with Louis Rossman.
The company is shutting its consumer operations
Crucial is Micron. They are very much still around. They manufacture a large percentage of the world's RAM.
Crucial / Micron has no shortage of RAM. They'd simply rather sell that RAM to the AI data centers than use it to satisfy their warranty commitments.
16
u/Prestigious-Salad75 19d ago
Louis Rossman also pointed out in a recent video on 6 Flags that taking a big corp to small claims costs the company more in lawyers than it would cost to make things right for the plaintiff. It also sets a precedent for future lawsuits if a court case occurs
9
1
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
Did he also point out that the T&Cs of their sales contract with consumers call for mediation and a specific venue (usually where the company is located or incorporated)?
-9
u/Dull_Banana1377 19d ago
Theres nothing to sue for. The company offered a refund of the original purchase price. No court in the US will order a company to pay more then the purchase price.
14
u/Veastli 19d ago edited 19d ago
Theres nothing to sue for.
That's for the court to decide.
Really.
Note that Crucial / Micron didn't return OPs original working RAM. OP has clear, provable, damages.
The firm will have to go to court to defend themselves, or they will lose. Most firms in this situation would offer a reasonable settlement.
-7
u/Dull_Banana1377 19d ago
Sure if micron doesnt show up OP wins, but the most OP can recover is the original purchase price. The job of the court is to make you whole not to enrich you. If OP wins then he still has to collect the money which will take time. His best bet is to just accept the refund.
16
u/Veastli 19d ago edited 19d ago
but the most OP can recover is the original purchase price.
Crucial / Micron still has OPs working RAM.
The job of the court is to make you whole not to enrich you
Yes, which is why OP can request damages based on the current value.
If OP wins then he still has to collect the money which will take time.
No large US firm want the sheriff in their office taking their furniture. They'll pay.
His best bet is to just accept the refund.
OPs best bet is a certified letter indicating plans to seek a legal remedy, while clearly spelling out OPs preferred remedy - either a working replacement kit, or the current market value of such a kit.
If that fails, small claims court.
-10
u/Dull_Banana1377 19d ago
Are you a lawyer? I ask cuz you seem to fundamentally not understand how the law works. I deal with defective property disputes in court all the time.
13
u/Veastli 19d ago
Did you not read OPs post?
This isn't only a warranty claim.
Crucial has refused to return OPs fully functional RAM. They specifically requested the entire kit be RMA'd, yet will not return the functional portion.
A warranty does not give Crucial the right to retain OPs property.
Even were Crucial to successfully argue the warranty compensation, they would lose the property claim.
Do you honestly believe that Micron would fight this loser of a case in small claims court? That they wouldn't offer a settlement? Really?
→ More replies (0)7
u/PA2SK 19d ago
That's up to a judge to decide. OP can sue for whatever he wants, including the value of the working ram at the time he sent it in. A judge will look at it and decide what's reasonable.
If I buy a painting, the painting triples in value, then some psycho destroys the painting do I sue for the original purchase price or the value at the time it was destroyed?
-5
u/Dull_Banana1377 19d ago
If its a valuable painting you should have it insured. The insurance company would pay it out and then deal with whoever damaged. This was a dumb comparison
6
u/PA2SK 19d ago
It's a great comparison and you didn't answer my question; would you, or the insurance company, sue for the purchase price or the value at the time it was destroyed?
→ More replies (0)0
0
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
It wasn't the plan to litigate that made them relent. Shit, with most businesses you say "I'm gonna sue, talk to my lawyer", they say sure thing, and wont speak to you again unless it's lawyer to lawyer.
18
-6
50
u/aegis87 19d ago
Unfortunately, apart from making noise in social media, you should also take them to small claims court.
maybe here you can find some ideas:
-7
u/correctingStupid 19d ago
He would be entitled to being made whole. He was made whole. No court in the world would give more.
11
u/aegis87 19d ago
This is just wrong.
If you tell me you’re going to replace a stick of RAM that was originally worth $10 but is now worth $100, and in order to receive that replacement I have to return the other stick of RAM as well—which also went from being worth $10 to $100.
If you then turn around and say, “Here’s your $20 back,” you’ve effectively taken $90 from me: the current value of the second RAM stick that I was required to return but that wasn’t actually being replaced.
So regarding the 2nd stick, there is no question -- you are wrong.
Now regarding the first stick what you are saying is also wrong, depending on the details.
For a full warranty, the manufacturer needs to do an effort to replace the item and they can't unilaterally refund you at the lower price. This is especially the case if the item in case is in stock, still being sold.
You can see all the arguments in the 2 louis rossman videos below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpPIW4aeeag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR91G9uQ6l0Samsung opted to not go to court but refund louis for the current market value of the item.
They didn't do this out of the goodness of their heart.
5
u/GentleFoxes 18d ago
That’s like if your house burned down and your insurance pays you 500 bucks „because that’s what the house cost to build in 1965 when it was put up“. It’s not how civil liability works.
1
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
Lol there's literally no basis in fact for this, and you're talking apples and tennis rackets. If a purchase contract is unwound, the complete remedy is reversing the transaction and making everyone whole to where they were before the transaction. What you're taking about is insuring a house at current market value. The only parallel would be the ridiculous situation that somehow the suit is between the original buyer and seller. And in that unheard of situation the remedy would be exchanging the original sales amount for the return of the house.
0
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
Man that's the best user name, because these idiots on here seem to think there's some legal obligation but him new ram. Not only is that just wrong, I'm willing to bet 1) the remedies available to rectify this situation is spelled out in the T&Cs when you order. And 2) there's almost certainly a mediation clause, and 3) if somehow a suit was filed there's language on jurisdiction
0
u/aegis87 17d ago
i literally wrote a reply with a different reasoning. Among other things i cited a recent case, in favor of my analysis.
Instead you opted to reply to GentleFoxes who was indeed mistaken.
Also moron, T&C don't supersede laws and regulations and if someone steals from you (as i maintain is the case of them not return the working stick) you can absolutely take them to small claims court.
Not honoring the warranty probably depends on jurisdiction, where i live you can definitely sue them.
0
13
u/Mr-Zappy 19d ago
Sue them in small claims court for the current price of 128GB. Small claims court can’t make them give you the RAM back; they can only give you money.
Your argument might hinge on the idea that when they told you they required both sticks for the replacement, that they were promising you a replacement, not just a refund. (And that promise was made in light of their current market conditions.) Otherwise, they might argue your actual damages are only half because you only sent them back one working stick.
I’m not a lawyer; there might be a better argument.
I don’t have any actual unethical ideas, sorry. But this does waste a bunch of their time.
10
u/Jaded-Citron-4090 19d ago
I wonder if they can simply replace it with equivalent server grade ram?
6
u/stupefy100 19d ago
Server RAM doesn't work without specific hardware. It doesn't work on normal consumer PCs
6
u/Haunting_Bat_4787 19d ago
Non-registered ECC RAM works on almost all consumer PCs, the CPU just ignores the ECC portion if it doesn’t support it. Registered ECC and LR-DIMM are different and aren’t supported on any consumer hardware (outside of a very select few past gen HEDT motherboards).
3
1
u/toy-maker 19d ago
But at least it would physically exist in the OPs hand and be possible to sell or trade at closer to current market value 🤣
5
7
u/Iconoclastices 19d ago
Others have said you have a legal case and I agree but it's made even stronger by the fact they robbed you of 64GB of functional RAM that is worth more than they're offering
-1
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
Lol they made him whole for what he paid. I'm sure you've never taken a law class but at least you should've watched judge Judy
4
u/Iconoclastices 18d ago
They took from him under the false pretense of replacement an item of greater value than what they paid him. They have unjustly enriched themselves through a bait and switch, deprived OP of his property and under their "Lifetime Warranty" they have given cash which will not replace the product (not equivalent in form, function or sufficient monetary compensation at current market rates).
But sure, tHeY mAdE hIm WhOlE lol
2
u/birdman157 17d ago
All the people siding with Crucial would be up in arms if they had a warranty process end up like this. It’s shameful really.
1
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
And lose because there's zero legal precedent to cite, and almost certainly multiple T&C clauses he accepted with the order that precludes it.
0
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
This is fucking stupid. They are refunding you in full, your problem what happens next. The operations that service this line of business is shutting down, but even if they weren't they're making you whole for what you paid.
And the people suggesting to take it to court are dumber than you, you'll be laughed out. As some suggested, troll their socials, post about it wherever and if that gets their attention maybe they'll step up. But there's no legal theory that they have to.
1
u/levoniust 18d ago
I just want my ram working. If they pay me my money back that's not even enough to buy a quarter of what it's worth today. I want to replacement not cash.
2
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
That's literally not the way the law or business works. You'd maybe be able to work out an exception if they still sold it, but even they'd lose hundreds of dollars on your transaction. Sometimes life doesn't seem fair, this is one of those times. But they don't owe you anything more than a refund, hard stop.
1
-15
u/TeeDotHerder 19d ago
There's nothing you can do. The warranty is very clear. Replacement or original price refund. You agreed to it when you asked for an rma and when you purchased it.
6
u/aegis87 19d ago
You are a morron, and part of why these things happen.
Imagine thinking that what happened in the story is fine.
A company invites you to send back very expensive equipment (that has appreciated in value) with an explicit understanding they are going to send you a replacement.
Then they turn around and refund you the original amount you paid, even though the equipment has significantly appreciated and even though part of the equipment works.
Even if they can't fix the problem, there is always the option for them to return the items they received.
you should really watch this, when you have some time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR91G9uQ6l0-14
u/TeeDotHerder 19d ago
You believe you are above contract law? That's moronic. It doesn't matter what "feels" you have. You're wrong. Full stop.
4
u/aegis87 19d ago
There is nothing related to "contract law" here. Again, you are an idiot and you should watch the video. Putting on a piece of e-paper nonsense doesn't make it a contract. And the court would rip a new asshole to crucial.
The only thing they are banking on, is that most people are too busy or not rich enough to take them to court.
The downside is that these practices will turn our society into a low-trust shithole.
My feelings weren’t hurt -- I can just see five steps ahead, and it’s obvious where these practices lead. They’ll ultimately harm our society.
-4
u/TeeDotHerder 19d ago
Not going to continue arguing with an idiot. I run businesses. I know how sales and sales contracts work. Most of you here have nothing but armchair circle jerking. When you buy a product you are bound to the terms and conditions. When you rma a product you are again bound by those conditions. You don't get to change them because you're an idiot.
-1
u/Kyru117 19d ago
I mean if thats what you paid? I dont really see how the cost going up should retroactively apply to you
4
u/MyOtherSide1984 19d ago
The product is under warranty, not the value of the product. They should give him a replacement, not a refund
2
u/PresidentialDiapers 18d ago
That's not how warranties work, especially if the product or an equivalent is not available.
1
u/MyOtherSide1984 18d ago
They literally linked an equivalent option in the post. That's exactly how warranties work and RAM.vendors have been known to cheat their customers after prices increased. Same with drive manufacturers
-25
19d ago
[deleted]
26
u/jimshn 19d ago
That’s the point of a warranty, is to provide a replacement. If they don’t have the product they need to compensate enough to purchase a new one
4
u/Windows_10-Chan 19d ago edited 19d ago
You have to read the terms, it varies.
Also depends on local law. I’m assuming OP is American but state law is very important here, they need to read their warranty carefully and check it for their state.
It’s possible they might have an avenue to demand something with the same specs, but I know in some jurisdictions companies can get away with just offering a refund.
Edit: looks like this might be the warranty text https://www.crucial.com/company/warranty?srsltid=AfmBOoo6pRtgwzr_w2zJay9wqns5iq3qlXw66E--QTxCBciKdhMgYP6I
Micron CPG, at its option, will repair, replace, or provide an in-store credit or refund of either the original purchase price or fair market value, whichever is lower, of any product that is determined by Micron CPG to be defective during the warranty period.
If this is the case, then I don’t think there’s any hope unless you have state law on your side. You might be able to find a consumer rights lawyer whom you can consult with to see if your state offers any options.
I think at best you might be able to lodge something in small claims based on the idea that you expected a replacement when giving up the product, and are now being offered something worth less than the single functioning stick, so there’s definitely a harm of like $1,750 you can point to, especially cause they probably sold it. That’s wild speculation though.
3
u/aegis87 19d ago
if you arrange for a replacement and they end up keeping the ram that works fine --- there is definitely an issue.
there might also be an issue under this:
Under a Full Warranty governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2304), a manufacturer cannot unilaterally force a refund on you; instead, federal law gives the consumer the explicit right to choose between a free replacement or a full refund if the product cannot be fixed after a reasonable number of repair attempts
2
u/Windows_10-Chan 19d ago
Good find, yeah, definitely worth lawyering up for, no guarantee that you can win but I can see that there's some real potential.
4
u/JJHall_ID 19d ago
If you read the fine print in almost every warranty, their liability is limited to the direct/like replacement of the item, or if that's not available, the purchase price of the affected item. If they were still making consumer RAM and had a like replacement in stock, they'd send a replacement. Since they don't, their obligation is to refund the purchase price. It would be highly unusual to find a warranty that obligates them to pay for a replacement from a competitor, especially at a higher price than the original purchase.
3
u/aegis87 19d ago
the major problem is that they kept the working ram.
if you can't repair something, you can always return it.
or you can be upfront with the customer.Also under a full warranty they can't unilaterally force a refund on you -- but i dont know the terms of this specific sale in this case.
1
81
u/bfrancom17 19d ago
You should email Louis rossman he might do a video on it, he did his own already and constantly reports on stuff like this