4 ms·

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 ne

by 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.
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        I'm sorry that you feel that you can enter a conversation, deny it, then reject the existing context of the conversation as something you didn't say. You cannot. Good day . > it might be a good idea to a) properly read I'd say the same to you, frankly.

by jhugo 5y ago

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.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      I'm sorry that you feel that you can enter a conversation, deny it, then reject the existing context of the conversation as something you didn't say. You cannot. Good day . > it might be a good idea to a) properly read I'd say the same to you, frankly.