5 ms·
A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with
by avewa 3y ago
A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with IKEA furniture and then they caught you buying stuff somewhere else and kicked you out.
The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you return to the house.
If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!
- serf 3y ago>If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy! it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time. but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.
- alanbernstein 3y agoThe problem is that none of this is obvious to an unaware consumer who thinks they're just buying a printer. The marketing practices surrounding this are deliberate and have a side effect of producing a huge amount of preventable waste.
- rvense 3y agoThat's not a more apt analogy at all, that's the stupid explanation they might give to tell themselves they're not being bastards, which they objectively are. It's not about laws or contracts, why are you twisting yourself to defend this? People bought a printer to print, they were able to print, now they're not due to HP's vandalism. It's so obviously not OK. If HP can't make a printer to sell for $80 then should just not sell printers for $80.
- Bran_son 3y ago> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave! If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge. If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoYou signed the contract. You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. You could sign a contract to eat shit for a dollar. You’re correct in that some countries restrict consent between individuals.
- rvense 3y agoOf course it matters how one-sided it is, and of course it matters whether or not this was obvious at the time of purchase. There's absolutely no way this is legal in Europe, but unfortunately it's sometimes hard to make these big American companies follow the law.
- janoc 3y agoThat's utter nonsense. You can't consent to stuff that is against the law, esp. when the "power balance" when signing the contract is extremely lopsided. Such contract clauses are routinely ruled invalid and unenforceable.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoWhether I consent to something has little to do with the law. I would hope that the law upholds consent, but as we see in the EU, it doesn’t.
- Bran_son 3y agoThe company consented to have its contracts limited by continuing to do business in the EU.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoAs did the gays consent to not marrying, or does “you consent if we voted for it” only apply when you like the vote?
- 3y ago
- mrighele 3y agoIt's not an apt comparison at all because renting a house and buy an appliance are two completely different things. In particular when you buy a printer you don't sign any contract so HP cannot say "you accepted our terms when you bought it". No I didn't.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]