Nope, not correct. By providing reputable sources specifing what represents a cycled tank, the LFS requiring a non cycled tank would lose. This would be reinforced by taking a sample yourself by going to the store before court. I'd walk in, tell them you're taking a sample, and take it. It may technically be theft, but you're stealing water. No cop (at least in the US) will nail you for that, if you stick around. I'd just leave, even if the store insisted that you stay. By providing impartial reputable sourse of what a properly cycled tank is, the stores policy, the danges of a noncycled tank (again from a good source), and possibly they're cycled tank water posessing the forbidden chemical, you've got a slam dunk. Either they are holding you to an impossible standard, and even if they would, the LFS had faulty water as well, and THAT is what likely killed them.Well the posted sign does say that nitrates must be zero for their guarantee to apply. Ever think that it isn't a typo, but a deliberate technique to avoid ever paying up on the guarantee?
If this is the case, it is a very unethical establishment; if the behavior of the employees is as described, that would be consistant.
I'd say you could take them to small claims court, but if the sign is as posted, they would just say they are complying with what they promised, even if you and I know it was intended to deceive knowledgable customers.
Also, the LFS saying that the policy is clear shouldn't work either. It is obviously wrong, a typo, and the above mentioned sources demonstrate. It should be acceptable to say that a reasonable person could assume the sign was incorrect. And that actually happened to be the case here.
If that's the case, anyone want some of my tapwater? It's 5ppm out of the tap.Usually, the policy says that nitrates must NOT be zero, because they then assume the customer brought tapwater in order to cheat.
I agree 100% with you. A store should resolve the problem. That's not necessarily getting something in return. Yes, an additional discount or credit would have been nice, but it would not solve your problem. It probably would have changed your opinion of the store to be a bit more favorable though.I think they should have thrown in some extra but whatever. I have to give her credit for calling
Don't. You're being factual. This is what happened. This is how they dealt with it. Personally, were I to live in Buffalo this thread would have me avioding the store until I needed to go there. But I would not blacklist it, only push it further down the list. You live with your mistakes in the service industry, and they will. But by mentioning how they fixed it you've done the responsible thing and basically allowed their side. It's a well rounded post.So I feel alittle bad spreading the name since they did clear up the matter