Actually, I agree with you. I think the re-stocking fee, given the fairly outrageous price of the product, is plain silly. I also think they should state the re-stocking fee on the FRONT page and I can see how someone could overlook it and come to woe afterwards.
I am sorry for having been snotty. Too many other things on my mind. However, I think it was unfair for the original poster to rant on this and another forum. He did so while CES was going on -- which makes it hard to communicate with any audio company -- and, well, he really didn't read the fine print. A little time spent on the site, before or after the purchase, would have clarified the situation. Also, to paraphrase Radish, this doesn't seem to belong on this forum. Personal qualms about another company don't have much to do with the direct discussion of Slim Devices products. Again, I do ask forgiveness of the forum for my short response. totoro;169568 Wrote: > lafayette: > > Even a child can see that there is a major difference between "Risk > Free" and "Risk Free with Major Caveats", although apparently some > lawyers can't. The banner didn't say "Risk Free with Major Caveats". > > This behavior on Bel Canto's part is pretty clearly unethical in many > people's ethical system. Whether it's legal or not doesn't really have > any bearing on whether it's wrong. I certainly wouldn't do business > with them, and it seems that some others feel the same way. > > If you condone unethical behavior, that's your business, but being > snotty to others while doing so doesn't present you in a very > flattering light. -- lafayette Sweet Home Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------------ lafayette's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9022 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31562 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
