Le.bouch... It all starts to make sense now, someone has to REPORT the post to Apple.
That explains why the deletions have been so one sided, and why it seemed that far more inflammatory text that was from someone deemed to be supporting Apple was left in...
I get it... If you can't win an argument, fix the rules.
Nothing to hide there then!
Absolutely none... ;-)
I like it that way. I'd be offended to have points here.
I was advised today, that due to the potential other activities regards this debacle, that I should save the content of my posts from now on - for another more serious forum.
I'm doing that, and will just lurk from now on.
All he best and hope we get a result eventually - though it may be too late for us - the alternate on another platform works far too well to ignore.
There are a number of relevant statutes in UK and EU law.
The UK law items are:
Trade Descriptions Act - correctly describing what is being supplied
Distance Selling Regulations - allows return of goods if unsatisfactory
Sale of Goods Act - several areas
All are quite powerful and geared heavily to the consumer.
Many large companies have been surprised at the power of this legislation and the cost if defence.
In general these matters get settled on the steps of the court..
Correct - so apply them.
My point is that I don't think they apply in this case, except where I have stated that they do.
Please, if you think you have a case, try to use the legislation and let us know how you get on.
You may find the following useful: (the formatting is not mine. The red text might give you a clue as to why your complaints here are a waste of time.
When you buy goods you enter into a contract with the seller of those goods. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 goods must be:
- 'as described',
- 'of satisfactory quality', and
- 'fit for purpose' – this means both their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer).
Goods sold must also match any sample you were shown in-store, or any description in a brochure.
Who to complain to
If you think you have a claim under the Sale of Goods Act for one of the reasons above, you have several possible remedies, depending on the circumstances and on what you want done.
In most cases, your rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer, and so you must take any claim against the retailer. However, if you have bought something on hire purchase (HP), it is the HP company that is responsible.
Firstly yes, we will find out.
Our advice is that all 3 do apply.
For SOG - the retailer is Apple Stores UK, but apparently it DOES apply to the manufacturer if the store only sells their products of one type - and I don't see any other tablets on sale in the store.
For TDA this is down to the manufacturer and were advised it certainly applies here
For DSR, there have been a number of precedents for downloaded software not functioning as they should including those unpaid for changes to existing software. Apparently there is the right to refuse the goods, and in doing that the goods must be restored to the former state before purchase (even if $0).
There are other EU laws protecting against software that doesn't work, which were advised to include too.
We are shall we say... in process..
I can't really say much more about this - but we're not alone.
Well there we are then. That wasn't too painful was it.
As I have said repeatedly, this forum is not where that particular solution will be found.
What I find rather sad is that "we" are increasling going down a route in all areas of life where, if we don't like something, instead of talking to originator and enforceing our satutory rights to refund, we feel we have to beat people around the head and demand compenstation and be punitive.
That only helps one range of people - lawyers. Have you not perceived the massive rise in insurance premiums in the UK due to such an approach?
People need to take responsbility for their decisions - and that applies to both sides.
I also believe that if ones business or livelihood totally relies on the performance of an aspect of a prodcuct then it is folly at best, and downright negligent at worst, to dive in without adequate testing.
For example, my personal laptop runs Mountain Lion. My work iMac runs Lion as we are still making sure that ML will work will all software and systems.
THAT is prudent. Had we dived in with ML the day it was released and found that many mission critical systems failed we would have nobody to blame but ourselves.
I can see the Sale of Goods Act supporting you getting a arefund. I am not confident a court of law will support a claim for damages. Although of course a lawyer will probably say it's worth a punt. They would, wouldn't they.