In my earlier posting (here), I talked about holding off on sending in defective notebooks to preserve any rights we may have for enhanced replacement computers. As it turns out, many folks did send in their notebooks or tablets because they were simply unaware of what was going on with the settlement administration.
Although I cannot predict how Judge Ware will decide, I think there is a valid argument as to why you, the recipient of a CQ56 replacement notebook SHOULD BE INCLUDED in any enhancement replacements, should Judge Ware decides in our favor. Why do I think that?
Specifically, the online claim form consisted of 7 steps or screens. Although I have all 7 screens from my personal submission, I am going to focus on screens # 1 and 6:
- Screen # 1: Initial introduction to filing a claim (here). This section is VERY IMPORTANT to your cause because page 2, second paragraph specifically stated that your defective notebook “…will be replaced with a CQ50 notebook…”. As you may recall, CQ50 model had number of sub-model variations in which one sub-model contained a dual-core processor.
- Screen # 6: Claim form waiver (here) which you *might* have waived your rights to any potential enhancements in the future. But at the same time, you signed off what amounts to a written contract with NVDIA, Milberg and/or the settlement administrator that in exchange for sending in your defective notebook, you WILL RECEIVE a CQ50 replacement notebook.
Since you ended up receiving a CQ56 with a single-core processor, NOT a CQ50 with your expectation of a dual-core CPU, you might be able to say that NVDIA/Milberg/Settlement Administrator are contractually bound to correct that error and send you a CQ50 notebook.
What do you think?
PS. BTW, please remember that I am not an attorney and any comments in the blog are my own personal opinion.