3 ms·
It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”. That’s in addition to any separate clauses that
by koolba 6y ago
It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”. That’s in addition to any separate clauses that disclaim any and all explicit warranty. I’ve never signed a contract without such a clause and would bet it’s already a part of all of these terms of service.
- gpm 6y agoYes... because warranties are optional guarantees of fitness being sold on top of the product. We aren't talking about a warranty on the product here, we are talking about the product itself, I have never seen a contract that says "oh, and we can steal the product back from you in exchange for monies actually received", unsurprisingly, outside of digital assets. And of course that term is common because the default terms for damages can go beyond that (e.g. if replacement value rises).
- Silhouette 6y agoIt’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”. And it's standard for statutory consumer protection laws to override any contractual terms and sometimes even make it illegal for vendors to suggest or imply that restrictions on the consumer's legal rights exist, at least in jurisdictions where consumer protection laws have teeth. Otherwise, every vendor (the big guy) could just require every consumer (the little guy) to sign away all their theoretical consumer rights as part of the purchase contract, and the theoretical rights would be worthless in practice.