3 ms·

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to. Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an i

by paulmd 5y ago

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to. Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the good. So like, if they sell you a hammer and it's actually made of glass, or the head falls off after the first hit - both of those would carry an implied warranty from the merchant and you would get your money back (in small-claims court, if necessary). The US is one such jurisdiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merchantability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merchant... IANAL, but the plain text is pretty obvious. Are you a lawyer, or can you explain how merchantability wouldn't apply?

pessimizer 5y ago
> "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to" These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA, because plenty of people successfully make films with RED cameras.
- paulmd 5y ago
  To be a bit brusque - the law is technical, but it's also written by humans and interpreted by humans, and programmers who spend all day working on computers and broadly trend towards the autistic side always try to come up with clever end-runs around the law that will never actually work in reality. See also: every time securities law or KYC/AML is brought up in crypto threads. Your "clever exploit" of the law is not going to work, and is going to land you in jail. If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused. It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be completely unamused by it. If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it back, most retailers have return policies and most of them will stretch them even further to keep the business of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person would expect a hammer to work. One person being an unreasonable person doesn't really change that. If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge is gonna slap them down.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
I think it's a pretty long haul claiming that something isn't fit for purpose because you don't like an EULA that's available on the website prior to purchase
- jhugo 5y ago
  That's absurd. If you buy something in a store you may never have visited the website of the manufacturer. It's not fit for purpose if you need to agree to a new contract, the terms of which were not disclosed to you before you made the purchase, before you can use it for its intended purpose.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    The courts have repeatedly held that being past that point in an installer is evidence of consent, so take it up with them, I guess
    - jhugo 5y ago
      He's not past that point; he hasn't accepted the new terms yet. Did you read the OP?
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        You're missing the point He can return it, or he can consent Nothing here is illegal. This structure is common, even though you guys are saying "that's absurd" Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law
        jhugo 5y ago
        I never said anything is illegal. All I have done is point out why he has a legal right to return it, as not fit for purpose. Apparently we agree, since you said "he can return it, or he can consent". > Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in international law that is even remotely related to these issues. Consumer rights and sales contracts are national (and in many countries even sub-national, e.g. state) issues. If you're going to make strong assertions and tell people they're "missing the point" it might be a good idea to a) properly read & comprehend the comments you're replying to, and b) actually know what you are talking about.

by paulmd 5y ago

pessimizer 5y ago

> "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to" These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA, because plenty of people successfully make films with RED cameras.

paulmd 5y ago
To be a bit brusque - the law is technical, but it's also written by humans and interpreted by humans, and programmers who spend all day working on computers and broadly trend towards the autistic side always try to come up with clever end-runs around the law that will never actually work in reality. See also: every time securities law or KYC/AML is brought up in crypto threads. Your "clever exploit" of the law is not going to work, and is going to land you in jail. If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused. It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be completely unamused by it. If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it back, most retailers have return policies and most of them will stretch them even further to keep the business of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person would expect a hammer to work. One person being an unreasonable person doesn't really change that. If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge is gonna slap them down.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

I think it's a pretty long haul claiming that something isn't fit for purpose because you don't like an EULA that's available on the website prior to purchase

jhugo 5y ago
That's absurd. If you buy something in a store you may never have visited the website of the manufacturer. It's not fit for purpose if you need to agree to a new contract, the terms of which were not disclosed to you before you made the purchase, before you can use it for its intended purpose.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  The courts have repeatedly held that being past that point in an installer is evidence of consent, so take it up with them, I guess
  - jhugo 5y ago
    He's not past that point; he hasn't accepted the new terms yet. Did you read the OP?
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      You're missing the point He can return it, or he can consent Nothing here is illegal. This structure is common, even though you guys are saying "that's absurd" Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law
      - jhugo 5y ago
        I never said anything is illegal. All I have done is point out why he has a legal right to return it, as not fit for purpose. Apparently we agree, since you said "he can return it, or he can consent". > Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in international law that is even remotely related to these issues. Consumer rights and sales contracts are national (and in many countries even sub-national, e.g. state) issues. If you're going to make strong assertions and tell people they're "missing the point" it might be a good idea to a) properly read & comprehend the comments you're replying to, and b) actually know what you are talking about.