Typical level of Chinese quality and my lesson for the future
They do not comply with local repair regulations, and the only option is legal action, which, as we know, is time-consuming. They refer to corporate regulations as if they were above national law. They do not distinguish between non-compliance of goods with the contract from the warranty provisions, which is complete ignorance. To be clear: the problem concerned a manufacturing defect in a new, non-activated device, not damage to the device during or after the warranty period. They charge money for “repairing” equipment that has never even been used. When you prove their incompetence, they copy and paste the same statements that have nothing to do with the case. I suppose they are perfectly aware of the decline in the quality of their products and that is why they pass the costs on to customers. DJI is finished for me, I will never buy their product again. I will supplement the above information with a brief summary of the law in force in my country (I tried to translate correctly, I hope I succeeded): /quote: according to Article 564 of the Civil Code, the loss of rights under the warranty for physical defects in goods does NOT occur despite the failure to meet the deadlines for the buyer to examine the goods or to notify the seller of the defect, if the seller knew about the defect or assured the buyer that there were no defects (i.e., my case, because the seller - by definition - undertakes to deliver goods in fully working condition unless clearly indicated that, for example, the goods are used, incomplete etc; of course that was not the case here - the goods were new, but DoA). Interpretation: This means that the entrepreneur is liable for the product even if the defect is noticed by the consumer more than two years from the item being delivered. /end of quote /case CAS-26145557-F5M8K3/