I'm not going to argue any more about it. You apparently enjoy dropping your pants and getting the shaft from these companies too much for any one to ever change your mind. Enjoy your romance, maybe you'll get a reach around for Valentine's Day.
And here is something relevent I grabbed off of the Hardforums. This guy just became my favorite person for the day.
<<
Ed,
I am quite amused by youre ramblings on the BB GF4 case. I am not sure how educated you are or how much you may know about the law, but from my point of view (being an MBA student of very good academic standing), the people (including me) have a good case against BB. In contract law, especially under the UCC and common law Best buy has an obligation to keep their contract. Not only on contractual basis, but also on the basis of lack "good Faith (which courts have said to be "some type of affirmative action consisting of at last...a design to mislead or to deceive others")". Again, you do not seem to know what you are talking about.
Both the UCC and common law have had precedence in this situation, and there have been discussion in the judiciary and the congressional branches of the US government about how an electronic contract is created. BB's disclaimer means little when it was A. Not present on the ordering form and B. Not readily available in position to the contract. Additionally, once consideration has been exchanged (funds transferred, and the promise of the card), then a contract has been made. The 4 basic parts of a contract is Agreement (when an contract is placed, consisting of an offer, acceptance, and the intention to hold to the contract), Consideration (monetary or goods transactional promises), capacity (whether the company or representative has the capacity to enter into the contract, IE the web site itself has capacity), and finally purpose, which is legal (as in no selling drugs or other illegal items).
Now, once each party has exchanged a contract, and have agreed to the same items (under the mirroring in the Battle of Forms for common law), or even have accepted different terms (under UCC, Battle of Forms do not need to be mirrored), then a contract has been made. The contract is valid once the submit button has been pressed. You cannot back out of a contract and offer a different terms once a contract has been made (take for example the Texaco, Pennzoil, Getty Oil case, where a handshake contract was made an then broken, that was a 10b dollar settlement)
Many companies will say that online policies will be different than brick and mortar policies. However, under the E-Sign act of 2000 (bill clinton signed), "a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transactions may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form". The purpose of this is because once an on-line transaction is made many companies would claim it as non-legal (best buy), and thus void. Would this be the same if you went and bought the same video card at Best Buy for 129, walked out of the store, and then they came out, tackled you, and made you bring it back? That's more or less what they are doing now.
Under UETA, a contract is made with an electronic mark or signature. This can consist a typed name at the bottom of an e-mail, a fax signature, a clicked through process on a web page where you put "I agree". All of these are acceptable acceptances of a contract.
Additionally, there are different situations when a contract can be voided and damages assessed even when a disclaimer was contained by the contractor. These can be when "surprise" over the disclaimer is evident (in this case the TOS were not readily available, and the voidable contractual language was a surprise due to its difference between BB on-line and BB brick and mortar). Furthermore, when a contract contains a one-sided general release (such as BB's TOS) it can be considered unconscionable with an "absent of meaningful choice". This one-sided ness has to be justified, in this case it is not. And one final point, BB must prove that the TOS's risks were risk neutral or established to be allocated in BB"s favor. However, without the prevalence of the TOS on the ordering page, all of these can be grounds to sue for damages. All of these were presented in Kurshige v Indian Dunes, Inc. In that case, the plaintiff lost, however, all of these were brought up in the case, and could be found to be in favor of the plaintiff.
Basically Ed, you were spouting off about things you have no clue about. I am no lawyer, I am only taking Business/Corporate law presently (and just read the chapters on contracts and warranties under UCC, CIGS, common law, and UCITA). Your trying to get more hits for your web site while stirring up controversy. I would recommend that you stop doing this because all it does it make you look like a fool in the hardware community as a whole. You should stick to what you do best, or at least adequately, heat sink testing, and leave the debate, and legality to people who know what they are talking about.
Furthermore, I will never visit or sponsor your web site again due to your ignorance.
disrespectfully yours,
Shawn M. Piece >>
