3 ms·
One of the commenters on that article says the manufacturer offered $37 in compensation for a unit they paid $200 for. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
by criddell 3y ago
One of the commenters on that article says the manufacturer offered $37 in compensation for a unit they paid $200 for. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
- dclowd9901 3y agoIf a product is considered a risk to home and health, it should be law that the purchasers of that product receive at least a full refund (upon company paid return of the unit).
- housemusicfan 3y agoFor an over ten years old dehumidifier?
- slipheen 3y agoIt's deprecated value isn't the most important part if they are no longer safe to use - The replacement value is what matters.
- maxerickson 3y agoThere are the same thing. The replacement value for a worn out dehumidifier isn't the price of a brand new one.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LocalH 3y agoIf the “worn out dehumidifier” was a fire risk the whole time, the manufacturer should consider themselves lucky if they get away with just providing the cost of a replacement now.
- criddell 3y agoConsumers should have an option. Accept the replacement value or the manufacturer has to repair or replace the unit at their cost. If manufacturers want to try to source a million used dehumidifiers that don’t have this problem, they should go for it. Don’t dump that responsibility on consumers though. I suspect though that a unit that retails for $100 costs them $25-$35. It would be cheaper to just replace all of them with new ones.