Help with kef r900 issue

Per the New Jersey Secretary of State, KEF Direct appears to be a trade name for GP Accoustics, Inc. I’m going to give it all I’ve got. I’ve provided the seller notice that 1. All rights and causes of action are reserved, 2. The sale agreement is cancelled or rescinded, 3. Acceptance of non conforming goods with latent defects is revoked, and 4. The assertion, without limitation, that I must return the goods to New Jersey for return or repair is either a deceptive or unfair trade practice in light of Washington’s statute.

Next, I’ll start drafting complaints.

I really feel quite strongly that I’ve been treated very harshly.

Well, that’s your view. Actually, it may be more than that, and then I’ve got to pay to have them packaged, and find a way to get these monsters to the carrier (rent a van?). They came on a pallet, and the guy who delivered them had an electric dolly. I reckon close to $650 in the end, and the insurance will be a couple of hundred.

Also, if you read for content, It is necessarily implied that if KEF continues to conclude there are no repairs needed, I’m on the hook for return shipping and insurance if I want my speakers back. So I send them to the other side of the U.S. at some risk....

Finally, I won’t have speakers for at least three or four weeks.

Sum: if KEF had local (“maintains or provides...reasonable and expeditious”) repair facilities (in state), as contemplated in the statute, this whole burden would be greatly reduced to inconvenience.

Relative to the cost of the fruit, the likely cost of the juice is unconscionably high, and unreasonably difficult to pick from the tree, as well as extremely bitter to the taste.

So, your view isn’t mine, nor do I intend to get treated this way. But, thanks for your comments.

Oh, it’s a simple proposition, really. KEF chose to market and sell in Washington, both to me and many retail sellers, and like it or not, Washington law allocated these risks and burdens to KEF, the party who should, and most ably, can bear it. After all, KEF did set this whole thing in motion.

Between two parties, a consumer and a manufacturer, who should bear the burden under these circumstances when the manufacturer voluntarily submitted itself to Washington law to get the benefits of its market?

Just received, which ignores it is a latent defect, and I did as KEF asked, initially:

”Thank you for your email. We understand you have recently been having some issues with the KEF R900 speakers delivered on April 18th (Tracking ESTES: 1169292478). At the time of checkout you agreed to the terms and conditions set forth for completing your transaction. Customers have thirty days from the time of delivery to return products due to any defect that could arise. As three months had past since your delivery before any complaint was made you are no longer eligible for return. Having sold countless R900 around the world with no issues there is no inherent design or fabrication issue present in the R900 speakers. Thousands of customer and professional reviews will attest to this. As of this date, August 27, 2018, the KEF service department has provided a replacement R900 driver, as well as has offered to fully repair or replace your speakers under warranty. If you have any additional questions or concerns please let us know. We look forward to continuing to provide exemplary service to our customers. Sincerely, Dan Sheinbaum KEF America Inc., E-Commerce Manager”

Bitter fruit indeed.