4 ms·

Does the moral situation change if I the seller make you agree not to tamper with the product before I sell it to you, and you do so?

rlpb 5y ago
Either I own it or I don't. If you don't want me to tamper with it, then you can't sell it to me. You can give me use of it under some other kind of agreement, but then you can't misrepresent that as a "sale".
- cheschire 5y ago
  Is your contention that a sale cannot contain a hybrid of services and goods, and must be one or the other?
  - inetknght 5y ago
    Sales can't be for devices that you don't own. Period. If you want to sell services that require specific hardware that you don't want the person to change to their will then make it clear that the device is loaned.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    It is not. Merely that there is no "sale of goods" component if the buyer doesn't end up owning the goods, where I define ownership as meaning that there aren't contractual restrictions on what the owner can do with them. This might mean that it's entirely a service by this definition.
- nybble41 5y ago
  While I agree that the owner has every right to modify their own property, I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. That's just a sale combined with a standard performance contract. You would retain the right to make changes—doing so does not infringe on the seller's rights, as they are no longer the owner—but there would be consequences for doing so because of the second part of the contract which you voluntarily agree to as a condition of the sale. Of course a penalty clause like this is demanding quite a large concession from the buyer, so I would hope people would tend to be reluctant to agree to such terms. It's also not the sort of thing you could easily claim was included in an implied contract without explicit notification and formal consent.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    > ...I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. It's fine to arrange that if that's what both parties want. My argument is simply about the terminology here. If it happens then it's not a sale of goods and the "buyer" doesn't own the goods, either. That's not what "sell" means in the context of goods. It's also not what "own" means.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > If it happens then it's not a sale of goods and the "buyer" doesn't own the goods, either. In the scenario I described there was a sale of goods and the buyer does own them. The seller certainly doesn't retain ownership; they might be able to sue over breach of contract if you modified the good and refused to follow through with the agreed penalty, but they couldn't reasonably sue you merely for modifying the good without their permission as it doesn't belong to them. It's no different than if you already owned something (so no question about sale/ownership) and then agreed in a contract to pay some amount if you modified it in exchange for some form of consideration. Insurance contracts, for example, usually have terms like this: unapproved DIY modifications to your vehicle can cost you your coverage without entitling you to a refund of your premiums, which amounts to a penalty, and yet it remains your vehicle despite those terms. You can always agree not to do something you otherwise have the right to do as part of a contract. It doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the sale.
cjfd 5y ago
Well, 'make you agree' is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

rlpb 5y ago

Either I own it or I don't. If you don't want me to tamper with it, then you can't sell it to me. You can give me use of it under some other kind of agreement, but then you can't misrepresent that as a "sale".

cheschire 5y ago
Is your contention that a sale cannot contain a hybrid of services and goods, and must be one or the other?
- inetknght 5y ago
  Sales can't be for devices that you don't own. Period. If you want to sell services that require specific hardware that you don't want the person to change to their will then make it clear that the device is loaned.
- rlpb 5y ago
  It is not. Merely that there is no "sale of goods" component if the buyer doesn't end up owning the goods, where I define ownership as meaning that there aren't contractual restrictions on what the owner can do with them. This might mean that it's entirely a service by this definition.
nybble41 5y ago
While I agree that the owner has every right to modify their own property, I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. That's just a sale combined with a standard performance contract. You would retain the right to make changes—doing so does not infringe on the seller's rights, as they are no longer the owner—but there would be consequences for doing so because of the second part of the contract which you voluntarily agree to as a condition of the sale. Of course a penalty clause like this is demanding quite a large concession from the buyer, so I would hope people would tend to be reluctant to agree to such terms. It's also not the sort of thing you could easily claim was included in an implied contract without explicit notification and formal consent.
- rlpb 5y ago
  > ...I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. It's fine to arrange that if that's what both parties want. My argument is simply about the terminology here. If it happens then it's not a sale of goods and the "buyer" doesn't own the goods, either. That's not what "sell" means in the context of goods. It's also not what "own" means.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > If it happens then it's not a sale of goods and the "buyer" doesn't own the goods, either. In the scenario I described there was a sale of goods and the buyer does own them. The seller certainly doesn't retain ownership; they might be able to sue over breach of contract if you modified the good and refused to follow through with the agreed penalty, but they couldn't reasonably sue you merely for modifying the good without their permission as it doesn't belong to them. It's no different than if you already owned something (so no question about sale/ownership) and then agreed in a contract to pay some amount if you modified it in exchange for some form of consideration. Insurance contracts, for example, usually have terms like this: unapproved DIY modifications to your vehicle can cost you your coverage without entitling you to a refund of your premiums, which amounts to a penalty, and yet it remains your vehicle despite those terms. You can always agree not to do something you otherwise have the right to do as part of a contract. It doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the sale.

cjfd 5y ago

Well, 'make you agree' is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?