10 ms·

Sol-Ark certainly seems to embody 'never let a crisis go to waste '. Sol-Ark may not have pulled the trigger on bricking the inverters, but it certainly sounds

Sol-Ark certainly seems to embody 'never let a crisis go to waste '. Sol-Ark may not have pulled the trigger on bricking the inverters, but it certainly sounds like their legal actions pressed Deye's hand. And then to shake down all the individuals who's inverters broke with a limited time opportunity to buy a brand new one from them....

kstenerud 2y ago
Wait, what? So defending your rights under an exclusivity agreement through the courts is somehow now "forcing" their hand? The evil Sol-Ark by suing for compliance to their contract pushed the hapless Deye into bricking consumers hardware?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Firerouge 2y ago
  I like how you quoted forcing, but I very specifically did not use that term. Had there been no exclusivity agreement, I think we can agree that the inverters would not of been bricked for being located in the wrong regions. I think the malice from Sol-Ark here is that they are only offering a limited time deal, which may pressure people to pay up before the courts clear this up. Regardless of who shares the majority of the blame, Sol-Ark, Deye or 3rd party vendors, this could of been handled better by all parties involved, and should not have harmed end consumers in this way.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Blaming Sol-Ark for that is just absurd.
  - mint2 2y ago
    It’s unclear who caused it exactly, but sol-ark does not seem to be at fault unless one thinks exclusivity contracts are illegal or wrong. It seems deye either willfully or negligently ignore their contract they made with sol ark. Or their middle men in other countries did. Deye then punished the end users for deye’s lapses. Where does solark get blame unless the exclusivity contract is what one objects to.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      When the purpose of the exclusivity contract is to sell something at 5x the price it is sold for in other markets, I think most people would reasonably describe this as price gouging.
      - anon84873628 2y ago
        So you're just agreeing with a possible viewpoint the parent admitted as valid several times?
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    > I like how you quoted forcing, but I very specifically did not use that term. I like that you substituted a similar word while paraphrasing a common phrase and then used the opportunity to say “I didn’t mean what you thought I did. I meant something else but will not describe what that is exactly”
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
greenthrow 2y ago
Why are you blaming Sol-Ark when Deye is the one in breach of contract taking illegal actions the entire time? Seems very disingenuous. They also did not force Deye's hand in this action and seem surprised by it.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  > in breach of contract I can't really figure out what they did that was in breach of contract. As far as I understand it, they don't do business inside the areas affected, so there is no contract to speak of. Instead, their authorized resellers seem to be the ones installing for their hardware; I don't even think it's legal to sell their hardware if it doesn't comply with FCC/etc guidelines. Is geo-blocking illegal? Am I entitled to a refund if I import American hardware that refuses to operate in my country? I think people were risking a broken setup for a big discount, and now it's come back to bite them in the ass. If the units affected were official installations done by their American reseller, their reseller wouldn't be so ready to offer up free replacements.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > Am I entitled to a refund if I import American hardware that refuses to operate in my country? If the product doesn't obviously communicate that it won't work in your country: yes.

kstenerud 2y ago

Wait, what? So defending your rights under an exclusivity agreement through the courts is somehow now "forcing" their hand? The evil Sol-Ark by suing for compliance to their contract pushed the hapless Deye into bricking consumers hardware?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Firerouge 2y ago
I like how you quoted forcing, but I very specifically did not use that term. Had there been no exclusivity agreement, I think we can agree that the inverters would not of been bricked for being located in the wrong regions. I think the malice from Sol-Ark here is that they are only offering a limited time deal, which may pressure people to pay up before the courts clear this up. Regardless of who shares the majority of the blame, Sol-Ark, Deye or 3rd party vendors, this could of been handled better by all parties involved, and should not have harmed end consumers in this way.
- lazide 2y ago
  Blaming Sol-Ark for that is just absurd.
- mint2 2y ago
  It’s unclear who caused it exactly, but sol-ark does not seem to be at fault unless one thinks exclusivity contracts are illegal or wrong. It seems deye either willfully or negligently ignore their contract they made with sol ark. Or their middle men in other countries did. Deye then punished the end users for deye’s lapses. Where does solark get blame unless the exclusivity contract is what one objects to.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    When the purpose of the exclusivity contract is to sell something at 5x the price it is sold for in other markets, I think most people would reasonably describe this as price gouging.
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      So you're just agreeing with a possible viewpoint the parent admitted as valid several times?
- jrflowers 2y ago
  > I like how you quoted forcing, but I very specifically did not use that term. I like that you substituted a similar word while paraphrasing a common phrase and then used the opportunity to say “I didn’t mean what you thought I did. I meant something else but will not describe what that is exactly”
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

greenthrow 2y ago

Why are you blaming Sol-Ark when Deye is the one in breach of contract taking illegal actions the entire time? Seems very disingenuous. They also did not force Deye's hand in this action and seem surprised by it.

jeroenhd 2y ago
> in breach of contract I can't really figure out what they did that was in breach of contract. As far as I understand it, they don't do business inside the areas affected, so there is no contract to speak of. Instead, their authorized resellers seem to be the ones installing for their hardware; I don't even think it's legal to sell their hardware if it doesn't comply with FCC/etc guidelines. Is geo-blocking illegal? Am I entitled to a refund if I import American hardware that refuses to operate in my country? I think people were risking a broken setup for a big discount, and now it's come back to bite them in the ass. If the units affected were official installations done by their American reseller, their reseller wouldn't be so ready to offer up free replacements.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > Am I entitled to a refund if I import American hardware that refuses to operate in my country? If the product doesn't obviously communicate that it won't work in your country: yes.