On 12th May we purchsed a HP DV6-6CO3HNX laptop which was on special marked down from $1499 to $749.50. In addition to the laptop we also purchsed (on the advice of the salesperson) the additional cover provided by Harvey Norman's Product Care Plan for $139. On 1st June I had to take the laptop in for a RAM upgrade during which the sliding lock mechanism for the RAM panel and battery compartment failed leaving the RAM panel only partially secure and the battery panel unabel to be opened. The tech advised me that the unit is DOA and could be replaced if i so wished. In order to do this I had to ring HP and get an authorisation number which i did in front of the Tech. He then went to check the stock availability and after about 20mins returned with the manager Ben who told me that that particular model was obsolete and offered me an inferirior ASUS claiming that it was the best he could do. After further discussion I was then told i could replace the unit with any new laptop to the value of $749.50. ??? I argued that this would mean a laptop with inferior tech specs and that this was not fair. I was told i was welcome to ring the Dept of Fair Trade and that all he (Harvey Norman) was required to do was repair, replace or refund. I reiterrated that HP had declared the item DOA and that it should be replaced with and equivalent unit with the same tech specs. Needless to say he was not budging and adamant that he was right. I stated he may very well be right but under the circumstances that doesn't mean it's fair !!!, When I got home i read the fine print on our Product Care Plan and discover a line which was not disclosed to us at the time of sale that supported the Managers stance. Irrespective of HP's support for the laptop to be declared DOA, Harvey Norman need only replace it with a $750 unit which will be substantially inferior in performance to the HP DV6. In summary I feel "cheated", not only over the legality of HN's position but more for the fact that we were "encouraged" to purchase the Product Care Plan (for an extra $139) on the basis that they would replace the unit no matter how minor the fault for a period of 36months fron date of purchase. Nothing could be further from the truth !!!, we were duped and the extra cover paid is not worth the paper it was written on ... :(((
0 comments