Exactly right! One my major points to them was that they have an obligation to sell me goods which are working in the first place- they were trying to tell me it's procedure and it could only be done that way etc. They weren't even considering refunding me because having an incompatible (correct mount, but autofocusing probs) lens wasn't enough reason. And furthermore it wasn't a problem with the 'piece' but a problem affecting the 'model'; lens or body, they say Sigma and Pentax are on it.. I think I'm lucky I was able to say that I was leaving the country soon, which more or less makes it more awkward for them if they wanted to hold their position.
Cheers, Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison > > Or perhaps because CR Kennedy had one of my ist D's for a month, 7 > > days > > after I bought it, > > That's amazing. > In Canada, the customer would make a case to the seller that the > product sold was not suited to the purpose for which is was sold, and > after a bit of bitching and whining, would get a new camera. > The distributor would reimburse the seller with new stock in trade > for the defective, and life would go on, with everyone happy. > > One has a right, when one buys something, to have it work for a > reasonable amount of time, or have it replaced or refunded. > > William Robb
