Behold , the power ofa scary - sounding letter from a lawyer ! Paul drop his Kindle 2 and it broke . Amazon wanted $ 200 to supercede it . Instead , they replace it and gave him an extra $ 200 . Damn , son !
earnestly , how badass is this letter he institutionalize to Amazon ?
Paul Gowder
[ Address omitted ]
August 12 , 2009
Amazon.com Inc.
Legal Department
1200 12th Avenue South
Suite 1200
Seattle , WA 98144 - 2734
Dear Sir or Madam :
On June 21 , 2009 , I purchased an Kindle 2 east - Word of God reader from the Amazon.com internet site . I purchase this machine based , in substantial part , on the anticipation that it would be reasonably durable . In particular , I expected that it would be just about as durable as is ordinary in the consumer electronics mart .
Amazon.com advertises the Kindle 2 on the basis of its lastingness . Notably , Amazon.com displays a “ drop test ” video on the web page for this product . That picture expose the machine being dropped twice from thirty inches onto what looks like tile . That video expose a fall with sufficient force that the twist visibly bounce , and measuredly create the opinion that the twist will go after impacts similar to that chronological sequence of drop .
Despite those histrionics , the Kindle 2 is far less durable . On July 26 , 2009 , I miss a courier bag containing the equipment onto the pavement , from approximately two feet above the earth . It was dropped only once , and the courier bag take in enough of the shock that nothing else in the bag , including a Macbook laptop computer , suffer any damage whatsoever . ( Unlike the drop displayed in Amazon.com ’s TV , for example , nothing actually recoil . ) Moreover , there was no visible damage on the exterior of the Kindle 2 . Nonetheless , the Kindle 2 became completely unusable , with over 50 % of its screen no longer able to display any schoolbook .
I called Amazon.com support and was told that , because of the accidental drop , you would not be willing to supply a replacing equipment under warranty . You did , however , offer to sell a Modern gimmick at a discount , for $ 200.00 . I take advantage of that offer under protest , and explicitly reserved my rights to bring a claim against you found on the unreasonable fragility of the equipment and the falsification in your advertising . It is that claim that mould the subject of this alphabetic character .
I am fain to offer an straightaway colonisation of my claims against Amazon.com for a payment of $ 400.00 . That sum total represents the $ 200.00 surrogate fee I give plus $ 200.00 to remunerate me for the decline of public utility company and value of the gimmick as well as of the e - book I have purchased for that gadget , in light of the fact that the replacement gadget , too , can be await to be far more fragile than advertised and prone to destruction under the slight stress . This offer go thirty days from your receipt of this letter . If you do not accept this offer , I intend to add suit either individually , or , if I decide it is warrant , as representative for a class of likewise situated complainant . At that time , I will seek the amount noted above , plus punitive harm under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act , Cal . Civil Code § 1750 et . seq . , cost , fees , and such other pecuniary damages as provide for by law , including without restriction Cal . Bus . & Prof. Code § 17200 et . seq . , the implied warranties of merchantability and physical fitness for a particular use , and other relevant jurisprudence .
Also , you have ask the return of the split up machine as a term to the unreasonable discounted replacement offer which I accepted under objection . Your agent has informed me that you will charge my quotation card for the full terms if the crushed equipment is not returned to you . I am view seeking a protective order placing that twist in the custody of the Court pending judicial proceeding . However , should I instead return the twist , you are hereby apprize that it is grounds in the anticipate judicial proceeding to which this letter refers . Should you modify , ruin , or resell the break gadget , I will inquire the Court to treat that as deliberate despoilment of evidence and make contrary inference as appropriate .
Very truly yours ,
And here ’s Amazon ’s reply :
Pretty awe-inspiring . Just cash in one’s chips to show that if you put your somewhat - unreasonable petition in an official - look form and also threaten to sue , big companies will be felicitous to toss a nominal amount of money your path to make you go aside . [ Consumerist ]
Amazonballskindle 2
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and refinement news in your inbox daily .
News from the futurity , delivered to your nowadays .
You May Also Like
