Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sean W. Smith who wrote (1916)	8/12/1998 9:42:00 AM
From: Spots	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

>>you would not spend $120 for a three year warranty on a system that only has 90 days Sure. That is, I would not. SOMEBODY's going to make money on that contract. The odds are very strongly with the seller if I buy it, and with me if I don't. Best insurance rule is, if you can afford the loss, insure it yourself (which of course is what you're doing if you pass up the contract). If you can't afford the loss, buy insurance, but don't expect to make money on it (what I do with my house). In the case of service contracts its even worse, as ZP and I report. The contractors do often go out of their way to duck responsibility. Surely not all of them, don't take this as a general indictment, but enough. I've had a hard time with Sears and Circuit city, for my two examples. Everything's covered but whatever's wrong; it takes weeks to get a service call (Sears) or months to get a product back (Circuit City); they can't find any record of your contract even though you can show the receipt (Sears), etc. In short, a royal runaround. Spots