3 ms·
You'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 gen
by rlpb 10y ago
You'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.