5 ms·
> I don't see a customer getting a free garage door out of it. Nor do I. That would imply that the customer had some extra asset at the end. That is beyond mak
by rlpb 10y ago
> I don't see a customer getting a free garage door out of it.
Nor do I. That would imply that the customer had some extra asset at the end. That is beyond making the customer whole, because such a thing presumably has a market value and can be sold, even if just for scrap.
> Using the refund to buy a competitive product would arguably make them whole.
Not necessarily. If the customer has additional costs that have not been reimbursed, and these costs were incurred as a consequence of the seller's breach of contract despite the customer's reasonable efforts to minimize them, then by definition the customer hasn't been made whole. Search for the meaning of "consequential damages".
It's up to the court to decide how to address the balance. It may decide that it isn't reasonable to reimburse some extra costs anyway. And in the US, legal fees won't be reimbursed so the customer may decide to settle for less. But if it does go to court, then in the case that the seller has "fired" the customer unreasonably the court may look upon the customer's claims for consequential damages more favorably.
- tyingq 10y agoI understand "consequential damages", but this is a poor example. It's not the only product in the world that can open a garage door from an app. I can't get a new car if I buy an alternator and it's faulty. Maybe if it damaged the car, but there's no corollary here. Edit: This happens all the time. Amazon "fires" sellers. Hosting companies "fire" people that suffered a DDOS, or similar cases to this one...customers that are snarky with tech support. Paypal "fires" customers at will, often with no details as to why. I've read many of these stories and never heard of a case where someone got something more than actual, direct losses back (like existing account balance).
- rlpb 10y agoYou're right; it's a poor example. I wanted to illustrate the principle in general, and had to go with the situation we already had. My point is that in the general case the seller arbitrarily deciding to refund does not constitute an automatic settlement. Some sellers may attempt to adjust the contracts to make this true. Depending on your jurisdiction and the nature of the sale, this may or may not actually change the contract. AFAIK, we have yet to see a clause of "I'll sell you this IoT device for a one-off payment of $X and I can arbitrarily decide to stop it working as long as I pay you $X and nothing more" succeed in court.
- tyingq 10y ago>AFAIK, we have yet to see a clause of "I'll sell you this IoT device for a one-off payment of $X and I can arbitrarily decide to stop it working as long as I pay you $X and nothing more" Not court cases, but IoT customers do get abandoned. Google's Nest bought Revolv and shut it down. As far as I know, they offered nothing at all as compensation. These were $300 devices. No related successful court cases from end users, as far as I know...and that's worse than what I suggested...no refund.
- mring33621 10y agofrom revolv.com: "The Revolv app and hub don’t work anymore, but we are offering a refund for your Revolv hub. To get your refund, please email us at help@revolv.com." Fair enough?
- AstralStorm 10y agoIf they didn't warn about service end of life, they are open to a tort, e.g. due to lost business or similar damages.