8 ms·

The Australian law in question requires refunds be made available if you can show that the product was not "fit for the purpose for which they were sold". It is

by jph00 9y ago

The Australian law in question requires refunds be made available if you can show that the product was not "fit for the purpose for which they were sold". It is an entirely reasonable expectation for a purchaser to make of a product, and entirely reasonable that they should receive a refund where that expectation is not met.

abiox 9y ago
i wonder what 'the purpose' of video games are, in the judiciary's eyes. if i didn't like the ending of a game, is it thereby not fit for purpose?
- chii 9y ago
  whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised. For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund. A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.
  - richforrester 9y ago
    See my comment above; > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Purpose of games, is entertainment. 2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. Let's say the average game gives you 40 hours of entertainment. (Bit arbitrary, granted.) 2 hours would be 5% of it's total lifespan. Sounds reasonable?
    - david-s 9y ago
      40 hours is not a good guess at a game's play time. Many indie games are around 4h long. I've played a story game that was only 2 hours long
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      > Sounds reasonable? Not under the Australian consumer law. We’re (rightly) quite proud of the level of protection it affords consumers.
    - shakna 9y ago
      Let's also say there's a show-stopping bug that kills your save at hour 37. You might have enjoyed the game, but due to its broken nature, you are still entitled to a refund under Australian Consumer Rights.
      - shakna 9y ago
        Just to back up my statement above with actual ACCC advice: "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" is considered a "major" problem with the product.
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. This seems to be straying off-topic. The question isn't whether it was worth the price paid. The question is does it violate consumer protection laws vis-a-vis does it do what they said it would. Sounds reasonable? It does not. Applying a uniform hard limit to the full range of all possible games seems unreasonable. Practical, but not reasonable.
  - WillReplyfFood 9y ago
    Would bad PC-Ports with a ruined UI qualify to that?
    - shakna 9y ago
      That depends on the advertising for the PC platform. If "it is significantly different from the sample or description" or "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" or "it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed." Then yes, it would qualify. So a bad port that still used the same graphics from the original platform to advertise could be an issue. Or if it contained show-stopping bugs, it could be a problem. Or if the business drops features after you purchase.
richforrester 9y ago
Refunds apply: > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Based on the premise that games are made for entertainment, 2 hours seems (to me) like a solid enough amount of time to figure out if something's worth it or not.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  What if the game has a showstopper bug in hour #3 of gameplay? It’s not fit for purpose.
  - lovich 9y ago
    To add to your point, there are many types of games that dont even let you get to all the features until pretty far in. Brutal legend basically changed genres mid game, thats not a 2 hour find
    - fenomas 9y ago
      This seems quite far removed from the issue being discussed. Having features late in the game that you don't enjoy hardly means the game isn't fit for purpose. That's like saying a novel isn't fit for purpose unless you enjoy the ending.
      - jackvalentine 9y ago
        I think the point the above poster is making is that features may very well be broken deep in to a game and you just don't know until you get there.
      - shakna 9y ago
        One of the listed items under the ACCC's guide for "major" problems is: "it is significantly different from the sample or description". So, it could be argued that such a sudden change, if not clearly advertised, could constitute an issue for the product under their guarantees.
bdz 9y ago
"fit for the purpose for which they were sold" Does that mean in Australia you can return your iPhone when it slows down?
- imtringued 9y ago
  At the time of sale the phone wasn't defective.
  - bdz 9y ago
    So what if a game breaking bug introduced with a later content patch? At the time of the sale the game wasn't defective
  - shakna 9y ago
    That's mostly irrelevant under Consumer Rights. However, the phone slowing down probably doesn't constitute a major problem, but rather a minor one. If only a minor problem exists, Apple has the choice of giving you a free repair, replacement or refund, but which is up to them. So I expect in this particular case, they'll just give you a new battery and the problem will be solved.

by jph00 9y ago

abiox 9y ago

i wonder what 'the purpose' of video games are, in the judiciary's eyes. if i didn't like the ending of a game, is it thereby not fit for purpose?

chii 9y ago
whitebox goods have set plenty of precedents for such reasoning - if it works as advertised, then you can't return it simply because you didn't like what it did (or its looks etc, or that it didn't fit your cabinet/spacing etc). It has to be defective, or didn't perform the full range of functions that is advertised. For a video game, i'd assume that as long as the game ran (no crashing etc), and the game has all the elements that is advertised, you can't return it for a refund. A good example was no man's sky. I would say it's refund-worthy, since they advertised that it is possible to multiplayer, and meet other people.
- richforrester 9y ago
  See my comment above; > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Purpose of games, is entertainment. 2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. Let's say the average game gives you 40 hours of entertainment. (Bit arbitrary, granted.) 2 hours would be 5% of it's total lifespan. Sounds reasonable?
  - david-s 9y ago
    40 hours is not a good guess at a game's play time. Many indie games are around 4h long. I've played a story game that was only 2 hours long
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    > Sounds reasonable? Not under the Australian consumer law. We’re (rightly) quite proud of the level of protection it affords consumers.
  - shakna 9y ago
    Let's also say there's a show-stopping bug that kills your save at hour 37. You might have enjoyed the game, but due to its broken nature, you are still entitled to a refund under Australian Consumer Rights.
    - shakna 9y ago
      Just to back up my statement above with actual ACCC advice: "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" is considered a "major" problem with the product.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    2 hours should be enough for you to decide if the game was worth it or not. This seems to be straying off-topic. The question isn't whether it was worth the price paid. The question is does it violate consumer protection laws vis-a-vis does it do what they said it would. Sounds reasonable? It does not. Applying a uniform hard limit to the full range of all possible games seems unreasonable. Practical, but not reasonable.
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  Would bad PC-Ports with a ruined UI qualify to that?
  - shakna 9y ago
    That depends on the advertising for the PC platform. If "it is significantly different from the sample or description" or "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it" or "it doesn’t do what the business said it would, or what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed." Then yes, it would qualify. So a bad port that still used the same graphics from the original platform to advertise could be an issue. Or if it contained show-stopping bugs, it could be a problem. Or if the business drops features after you purchase.

richforrester 9y ago

Refunds apply: > if the request is made within fourteen days of purchase, and the title has been played for less than two hours Based on the premise that games are made for entertainment, 2 hours seems (to me) like a solid enough amount of time to figure out if something's worth it or not.

jackvalentine 9y ago
What if the game has a showstopper bug in hour #3 of gameplay? It’s not fit for purpose.
- lovich 9y ago
  To add to your point, there are many types of games that dont even let you get to all the features until pretty far in. Brutal legend basically changed genres mid game, thats not a 2 hour find
  - fenomas 9y ago
    This seems quite far removed from the issue being discussed. Having features late in the game that you don't enjoy hardly means the game isn't fit for purpose. That's like saying a novel isn't fit for purpose unless you enjoy the ending.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      I think the point the above poster is making is that features may very well be broken deep in to a game and you just don't know until you get there.
    - shakna 9y ago
      One of the listed items under the ACCC's guide for "major" problems is: "it is significantly different from the sample or description". So, it could be argued that such a sudden change, if not clearly advertised, could constitute an issue for the product under their guarantees.

bdz 9y ago

"fit for the purpose for which they were sold" Does that mean in Australia you can return your iPhone when it slows down?

imtringued 9y ago
At the time of sale the phone wasn't defective.
- bdz 9y ago
  So what if a game breaking bug introduced with a later content patch? At the time of the sale the game wasn't defective
- shakna 9y ago
  That's mostly irrelevant under Consumer Rights. However, the phone slowing down probably doesn't constitute a major problem, but rather a minor one. If only a minor problem exists, Apple has the choice of giving you a free repair, replacement or refund, but which is up to them. So I expect in this particular case, they'll just give you a new battery and the problem will be solved.