3 ms·

It does feel a little wrong to do a chargeback against the retailer when they aren’t Facebook. Like, it’s not Target/Walmart/etc’s fault Facebook sucks. But it

It does feel a little wrong to do a chargeback against the retailer when they aren’t Facebook. Like, it’s not Target/Walmart/etc’s fault Facebook sucks. But it could also be argued that if the product sucks this bad, they shouldn’t be entertaining Facebook’s Quest 2. I guess it just depends on your view of things. To be clear: I’d absolutely return (or chargeback if necessary) in this case. Your social profile should have no bearing on your ability to use hardware you paid hundreds of dollars for.

rlpb 6y ago
In my view, the retailer isn't even legally at fault. Oculus is, for modifying the your device such that you can no longer use it. Imagine buying a chair. A year later, the carpenter who made it lets themselves into your home and modifies it so it has three legs instead of four. They say it's an improvement because it's lighter now and easier to move around. But your elderly parent can't use the chair any more because it's less stable. Despite both arguments being valid, ultimately they had no right to modify your device. This is a Tort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort). In the US, they'd probably be able to argue that there's some ToS that permitted this. In most of the rest of the world, I'd argue that there was no ToS at the time of the sale, and that therefore it cannot be valid (especially as there was no consideration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) associated with that modification).
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Well, they’d argue that, while there was no TOS at sale, they did have a “shrink wrap EULA” that said “agree to these terms or return the item” and the terms included a “we can change these terms at any time but you can’t” clause. It’s ridiculous, but it’s the way it is now (in the US).

rlpb 6y ago

In my view, the retailer isn't even legally at fault. Oculus is, for modifying the your device such that you can no longer use it. Imagine buying a chair. A year later, the carpenter who made it lets themselves into your home and modifies it so it has three legs instead of four. They say it's an improvement because it's lighter now and easier to move around. But your elderly parent can't use the chair any more because it's less stable. Despite both arguments being valid, ultimately they had no right to modify your device. This is a Tort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort). In the US, they'd probably be able to argue that there's some ToS that permitted this. In most of the rest of the world, I'd argue that there was no ToS at the time of the sale, and that therefore it cannot be valid (especially as there was no consideration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) associated with that modification).

colejohnson66 6y ago
Well, they’d argue that, while there was no TOS at sale, they did have a “shrink wrap EULA” that said “agree to these terms or return the item” and the terms included a “we can change these terms at any time but you can’t” clause. It’s ridiculous, but it’s the way it is now (in the US).