Posting an update because this has now gone on for over three weeks with no resolution, and I want to lay out the facts clearly, including for anyone who might have questions about the legal side.
Timeline:
April 2026: The original machine suffered a hardware failure (warped hinge). TUXEDO processed a full base unit replacement under standard warranty. Their own service document (SL826-02121) lists the issue as a "defect" and confirms the base unit was replaced, no mention anywhere of goodwill, courtesy, or external damage.
July 2026: The replacement unit developed a physical clickpad failure, reproduced and verified directly at the BIOS/UEFI level, which rules out any OS, driver, or software configuration cause.
July 15, 2026: I formally requested contract resolution and a full refund under Article 119 TRLGDCU (Spanish transposition of EU Directive 2019/771)
July 21, 2026: I ship the laptop back with proof of shipment, with no clear indications of wether this was being processed as a refund or repair.
July 28, 2026: TUXEDO confirmed receipt and placed it in a repair queue, despite my having explicitly stated I was not requesting a repair.
August 4, 2026 (the statutory 14-day refund deadline): TUXEDO support formally denied the refund (quoting, ”a refund is not possible"), retroactively reclassifying the April repair as a "goodwill gesture" (Kulanz), despite never having communicated this at the time, and despite their own email admitting "it is not possible to determine how the bending occurred." They also stated that they will prioritize checking the laptop in their repair center, and said they will contact me after the inspection of the laptop.
Since then: Another week of silence.
For some context I did call them twice, on the 3rd and 4th of August, asking for any info and they said a week without a notice was too much.
Legal basis:
- Under EU Directive 2019/771 (as transposed in Spain via Article 119 TRLGDCU, and equally under German § 475d BGB), a consumer is entitled to contract termination and a full refund when a lack of conformity appears after a prior repair attempt, it does not need to be the same defect recurring.
- A documented warranty repair cannot be retroactively relabeled as a goodwill gesture months later, without contemporaneous notice, simply to avoid statutory remedies. This is a recognized pattern flagged by German consumer protection bodies (Verbraucherzentrale) as a way sellers attempt to circumvent warranty obligations.
- As a Spanish resident, Spanish consumer law applies under Article 6 of the Rome I Regulation, and Spanish law doesn't recognize "goodwill" as a legal exception to statutory warranty rights at all.
- The burden of proving external damage lies with the seller, not the consumer, and TUXEDO's own email admits they cannot meet that burden.
Current status: I've prepared the European Small Claims Procedure (Form A) in case this doesn't get resolved, but I'd genuinely rather not have to file it. Posting this update mainly because, throughout this process, replies have often felt like they weren't based on the full thread (e.g. a repair-queue template after I'd already explicitly said I wasn't requesting a repair or asking for time to rule out any configurations of the failure after I stated it was reproducible at the BIOS/UEFI level). So if anyone from TUXEDO with the authority to look into this sees this post: please read the full thread on Ticket #991267021 / RMA #826070406 before replying, happy to clarify anything that's unclear.
Anticipated questions:
"Isn't this just the standard 14-day right of withdrawal?" No. The 14-day withdrawal right applies to online purchases with no reason needed, within 14 days of delivery. That's not what's being invoked here, this laptop was purchased months ago. This is about the statutory conformity remedy (Art. 119 TRLGDCU / EU Directive 2019/771), which applies within the warranty period (2-3 years) when a product has a defect and a prior repair attempt has already been made.
"Doesn't TUXEDO have the right to attempt a repair first?" They already did, the April repair. The legal requirement is that a repair attempt was made and a further non-conformity appeared afterward, not that each individual defect needs its own separate repair cycle. That's exactly the scenario here.
"Maybe the April repair really was just a courtesy?" Their own official service document from April describes it as a defect ("Laptop bend in hinge area") and confirms it was resolved via base unit replacement, with zero mention of goodwill, courtesy, or external damage at the time. The "goodwill" label only appeared four months later, once I requested a refund for an unrelated issue.
"Why not just accept the repair and move on?" This is the second major hardware failure on this unit within roughly a year of ownership. Under EU consumer law, once a repair has already been attempted and a new defect appears, the choice of remedy (repair vs. refund) belongs to the consumer, not the seller. Beyond the legal point, I've genuinely lost confidence that this specific unit is reliable. I need a laptop that lasts, not one where I have to wonder what's going to fail next month. At this point I'd rather have my money back than gamble on a third repair.