If someone sold you a 300k car for 1300k you might have a slightly stronger case.Originally Posted by Loki
Since when is it the government's role to overrule individuals to decide that contracts not signed under duress are "unjust"? I don't think a Lamborghini is worth $300k. I guess I should request that the government force all sellers to charge a lower price.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Does anyone believe in Loki's magical world of people not buying digital goods because of restrictive EULAs somehow resulting in less restrictive EULAs?There are simply to many pieces in motion, to many options of old tech, for that to happen. Loki basically wants us to live in a current age without change, because that would literally become the only option, and thats exactly what the current media giants want.
Just look at binding arbitration, is there a company left that hasn't banned their users from class action lawsuits via an EULA since the supreme court's ruling? You are literally not allowed online (through the US' 6 top providers) without agreeing to give up that right.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-11-2012 at 12:23 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't think monopoly is the right way to describe the issue with music sales. Neither do I think past consideration is (duh). Obviously both were examples of cases where the government does indeed regulate contracts beyond 'is the good or service legal' and I think it's for a good reason. In the case of music, the issue at stake is not monopoly or consideration issues but IMO it is the doctrine of first sale. To my eyes, this is a reasonable overarching concern for the government to decide the enforcement of contracts, like my other examples.
Well the italicized is the point. Not all agreements are or should be considered legal and binding, no matter how well informed the parties are. A classic example being that prenups and divorce agreements cannot constrain a party from entering into future relationships. Indentured servitude/voluntary slavery would be another.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If I know the car is worth 300k, why should the government stop me from paying 1300k for it?
I already mentioned that. Last I checked, music is not an illegal good/service.
Hope is the denial of reality
Labor is not an illegal good or service. And marriage itself pretty much legally expresses constraints on your future relationships. It's the terms that are objectionable. There is no right to unfettered contracting, there is no reason there should be a right to unfettered contracting as you alleged.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Slavery is unacceptable in a liberal society, which is why the government has a reason not to enforce such contracts. You're conflating contracts that undermine people's human rights with ones that are merely uneven.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, you conflated them I just pointed out that your objection applies to them as well. And now you're trying to draw a nonexistent legal distinction to separate them.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I suspect you may find you might get caught up under money-laundering laws.
The government better start policing ebay for unfair deals then.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ebay already have a policy of cancelling ridiculously unfair deals. Again they could be in murky waters for money-laundering if they weren't.The government better start policing ebay for unfair deals then.
Oil cost $20 a barrel for a few decades. I say anyone paying more than $50 a barrel is getting ripped off and needs to be stopped by the government.
Hope is the denial of reality
Where does this thing come from that the government will refuse to honour 'unfair' deals? I know you can't make a contract that contradicts basic consumer rights, but other than that?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It was Minx's suggestion.
Hope is the denial of reality
Same reason why if a shop displays a product for £9.50 but scans it at £10 at the till they have to honour the lower price, but if by typo they advertise a £1000 PC for £10.00 then you have squat rights to enforce it.
Actually advertising isn't enforceable anyways, RB. It's essentially an invitation to negotiate IIRC.
I've never seen a store that doesn't warn they don't have to honor sale prices if they consider the sale price an error. The amount of the discount doesn't matter.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not over here, a advertisement with a price tag included has the same status as a quotation. That's why adds here always have something like "from Fr 1020.--" or "Fr 1020.-- only as long as in stock" included. This way the shops have an exit strategy.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
It's not merely advertising but with online shopping especially it's happened before that a shop has listed PCs etc for 1% of the real cost and people have bought it and paid for it. And emailed the link to their mates etc so lots buy it quickly.
But even though money's changed hands it can still be cancelled. Whereas if there's a price tag on a product in a supermarket in the UK, unless its an obvious error like that, the supermarket is obliged to honour the price tag even before money's changed hands.
Even if it's not listed in an ad but displayed on the actual product, or even at the checkout. If you know the price can't be right, you can't enforce it.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I'll have to look up contract law again gents, but I'm pretty sure that there's no legal recourse if they charge you a higher price then an ad or quote (other than not buying, of course) - at least in the US. Most stores will honor a lower price (at e.g. supermarkets) because customer satisfaction matters to them and it fits our sense of 'fairness', but I don't think that's a legal requirement. I believe all quoted prices until the moment of sale are considered an "invitation to treat" rather than a legal obligation - this certainly seems to be the case in the UK and US based on my reading on contract law.
If they charge you a too low price they can cancel the sale before shipping, though.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
On a slight tangent. I pre-ordered a Bluray boxset of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy from WalMart for $10. Comes with "Hobbit Cash" which is basically a free movie ticket to see the Hobbit. I knew it was a pricing mistake, but I figured what the hell. Since its a preorder I haven't been charged yet (doesn't ship till end of November). Nor do I expect or feel entitled to get the set at that price. In the US, manufacturers are legally allowed to force retailers to sell their items at predetermined MSRPs, so I know that price mistakes can get stores in plenty of trouble without figuring in having to write off the price mistake.
With that said, I keep checking the item. The preorder was sold out within a few hours of my order and the price jumped to $35. Its currently back and available for preorder at $30, which would give me a 75% discount (without counting the movie ticket that would make the purchase pay for itself). So far my preorder has not been cancelled.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Update on the dead tangent
Walmart did honor my preorder. So I got The Lord of the Rings Trilogy on bluray (6 discs total), for $10. However the movie cash offer was altered, the coupon is for $5 instead of $10. Still a good enough deal to keep.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote