Is it new or not? hitachi 7k60 from zipzoomfly

Message

nomoredells · #1 Post by **nomoredells** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:20 pm

I ordered the bundled enclosure/60 GB drive from ZipZoomFLy. Nowhere did I see it say refurb. But the drive, though sealed in foil wrap, and dated feb-05 has a little sticker on the bottom that says "Refurbished to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies standards".

Should I be concerned? That just doesn't seem right.

Tan Mann · #2 Post by **Tan Mann** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:42 pm

I would go to Hitachi's website and check the warranty status.
Personally, I would NOT accept what is DEFINITELY a REFURBISHED hard disk.
There is a tremendous shortage of this hard disk in the market at present.
I am not surprised that some vendors are peddling refurbished goods as "new"... The bast_rds!!!

Leon · #3 Post by **Leon** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:50 pm

not like ZipZoomfly to do that.... please post the link to what you ordered.....

#4 Post by **aamsel** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:53 pm

You are talking about the Vantec enclosure with the 7K60?
And it says "refurbished" on a sticker??
Very simple...call Zipzoomfly, demand refund and that THEY either email you a prepaid FEDEX/UPS return label or refund your shipping charge.
If they don't do this, call your credit card company and dispute the charge.
Period.

You are right...it does not say "refurb" anywhere in the listing.

Andrew
Austin, TX

nomoredells wrote:I ordered the bundled enclosure/60 GB drive from ZipZoomFLy. Nowhere did I see it say refurb. But the drive, though sealed in foil wrap, and dated feb-05 has a little sticker on the bottom that says "Refurbished to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies standards".

Should I be concerned? That just doesn't seem right.

nomoredells · #5 Post by **nomoredells** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:58 pm

aamsel wrote:You are talking about the Vantec enclosure with the 7K60?
And it says "refurbished" on a sticker??

Yep, that is the one. I will call them tomorrow. I checked the warranty anyway and it says 1/2008. Thanks for the replies. Dang! I've been sitting on it for over a week - just when I was ready to use it....

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... 414-100519

#6 Post by **aamsel** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:05 pm

Mistakes happen, and it is possible that one refurb got accidentally mixed in with their new stock (by them or by Hitachi).
Could happen.

If that is the case, they should be happy to cross-ship a new one to you, and send you a label for return of the refurb one.

Andrew
Austin, TX

baraider · #7 Post by **baraider** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:21 pm

the drive alone costs 164 and this drive with external enclosure cost 169...only $3 for the case....pretty cheap...

#8 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:22 pm

Bummer. I've bought stuff from ZZFly before and never had a problem. I'm sure if you call and are polite you'll have no problems getting the correct item.

craigg · #9 Post by **craigg** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:28 pm

USB 2.0 enclosures for 2.5" drives can often be found for ~$10 as there is no needed power supply. They are not much of a cost factor in your purchase. I have had good experience in the past with ZZF. Since the warranty is still valid until 1/2008, if it were me, I would ask for a price concession of perhaps $40 and forget about the return headaches. I think this would work best for both merchant and buyer.

Leon · #10 Post by **Leon** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:28 am

Let us know!

nomoredells · #11 Post by **nomoredells** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:54 pm

Well, I had emailed zzf last night and this afternoon had an RMA number. I called to ask about them shipping out the new one with a shipping label and the woman was supposed to call me back but I haven't heard from her yet. I may just mail it out tomorrow.

The thought of asking for a discount and keeping it had crossed my mind, but I'm not sure they believe me for one thing

and it seems like a Hitachi issue not ZZF, so I'm just going to try for a new one.

Guess I can run some more time tests on some with some of my programs for comparion purposes.

Leon · #12 Post by **Leon** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:21 pm

Well, I'm glad to hear that it sounds like it was an honest mistake on in their side, and they are making it right. Plz let us know the conclusion.

nomoredells · #13 Post by **nomoredells** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:17 am

Well, actually they did call last night but I didn't get the message.

They won't refund the shipping back but they offered me $10 to keep the refurb. That doesn't seem like such a deal. I'll call and see if they want to give me more, otherwise I will return it.

Ann

Leon · #14 Post by **Leon** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:26 am

Well, since the drive is fully warranted, that may not be such a bad deal. In any case, if you feel uncomfortable, they should pay shipping back, in particular if you are getting another from them.

pae77 · #15 Post by **pae77** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:05 am

If you are going to return it, I would try to talk to someone more senior at ZZF and point out that, whether intentional or not, they basically engaged in FRAUD by sending you a refurbished product that was advertised as new. It is their fault the product is being returned. Therefore the least they can do is pay the shipping both ways.

Btw, I got a 7K60 (without the enclosure) from them last week. It was brand new dated March 05 and the warranty goes through March 11, 08.

bapatterson · #16 Post by **bapatterson** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:11 am

Uh, "fraud" is a bit harsh and factually not supported. Fraud requires a specific intent to defraud at the time the act was committed--not a mistake. This is breach of contract or negligence--not fraud.

Why do I point this out? Fraud is both an intentional tort that potentially subjects the offender to punitive damages. It is also a crime.

Not particularly advisable to accuse someone of committing a crime who has not done so.

nomoredells · #17 Post by **nomoredells** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:55 am

Well, I didn't accuse them of fraud but I did ask to speak to a manager. They were all "out to lunch". So I expressed my concern that as a first-time customer I wasn't too happy that they wouldn't pay shipping for something that wasn't my fault and that I was willing to accept a $20 store credit to take the drive but I didn't think $10 was worth the risk. I got a call back saying they would pay $7 of my shipping costs. All-in-all I'm not that impressed with the customer service. I hope BUY.com gets the drive back in at their very good price because that will be where I purchase 2 more of them for my staff.

Ann

pae77 · #18 Post by **pae77** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:27 am

bapatterson wrote:Uh, "fraud" is a bit harsh and factually not supported. Fraud requires a specific intent to defraud at the time the act was committed--not a mistake. This is breach of contract or negligence--not fraud.

Why do I point this out? Fraud is both an intentional tort that potentially subjects the offender to punitive damages. It is also a crime.

Not particularly advisable to accuse someone of committing a crime who has not done so.

I chose my words carefully.

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

The essential elements of a claim of fraud by a negligent misrepresentation are:

1. The defendant must have made a representation as to a past or existing material fact; (The online ad.)

2. The representation must have been untrue; (The ad failed to disclose the drive was a refurb.)

3. Regardless of his or her actual belief the defendant must have made the representation without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true; (The only element that is at all in question here, but arguably the vendor has a duty to exercise reasonable care in knowing the condition of the merchandise they have and are selling, which they obviously did not do in the present situation.)

4. The representation must have been made with the intent to induce plaintiff to rely upon it; (The ad (i.e., the representation) was intended to induce people to buy i.e, rely.)

5. The plaintiff must have been unaware of the falsity of the representation; must have acted in reliance upon the truth of the representation and must have been justified in relying upon the representation; (Obviously satisfied here.)

6. And, finally, as a result of the reliance upon the truth of the representation, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. (Again obviously satisfied here.) (Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 C.2d 481.) Btw, ZZF is in California so clearly subject to CA law, probably also subject to the law of the buyer's state.

jmt · #19 Post by **jmt** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:55 am

I have always been very happy with Buy.com through many purchases

Leon · #20 Post by **Leon** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:08 am

In the past, I have always with zipzoomfly as well.

jmt, Welcome to our Forum. Please add Location and other relevant information to your profile. Not required, but appreciated.

JHEM · #21 Post by **JHEM** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:10 am

Leon wrote:In the past, I have always with zipzoomfly as well.

Ditto, I've been dealing with ZZF since back in the days when they were googlegear.com, never had a problem that wasn't quickly resolved to my satisfaction.

I think the OP's problems are a fluke.

Regards,

James

pae77 · #22 Post by **pae77** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:21 am

JHEM wrote:
Leon wrote:In the past, I have always with zipzoomfly as well.
Ditto, I've been dealing with ZZF since back in the days when they were googlegear.com, never had a problem that wasn't quickly resolved to my satisfaction.

I think the OP's problems are a fluke.

Regards,

James

So do I. In my first post in this thread, I was merely suggesting a negotiating tactic for the OP to use to get treated properly, (i.e. get free return shipping, which they should be offering him under the circumstances). Wasn't suggesting he sue them for fraud.

bapatterson · #23 Post by **bapatterson** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:16 pm

pae77 wrote: I chose my words carefully.

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

You can have the frivolous lawsuit. If you honestly think, after choosing your words so carefully, that an isolated instance of sending out a prepackaged hard drive that had been refurbished by the manufacturer constitutes negligent misrepresentation, go for it. Negligent misrepresentation is usually called just that. It is not usually referred to as unqualified fraud, which is usually saved for the intentional tort of fraud and deceit.

But you'll no doubt want to argue with me. Feel free. I'm going to go have a drink instead.

pae77 · #24 Post by **pae77** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:57 am

Argue w. you = NO
Lawsuit = NO
Negotiating tactic = YES

Is it new or not? hitachi 7k60 from zipzoomfly

Is it new or not? hitachi 7k60 from zipzoomfly

Re: Is it new or not? hitachi 7k60 from zipzoomfly

Re: Is it new or not? hitachi 7k60 from zipzoomfly

Who is online