Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by eisenb11, Sep 17, 2006.
"Thus" -- Thus you've made up your own principles of law.
You obviously don't have any knowledge of contract law. (That's not intended to be an insult. The legal community does a horrible job pushing out this type of information to the public.) How can you say that I simply made up my own principles of law without some basic understanding of contract law yourself?
Granted, there conceivable could be a clause in the contract that allows them to rescind the contract within 30 days or so. But a) I doubt there is (Yes, that's pure conjecture on my part, not having read the contract. If there is such a clause, fine. Feel free to post a link to the terms and conditions. I did a brief search and did not find it the terms on line.) and b) even if there were, I suspect that BB won't attempt to excercise that right within the period of time.
As far as BB trying to avoid honoring the contract, certainly they can refuse to honor it, but that does not mean that they are legally justified in doing so.
I don't understand what this means. Please explain.
The funny thing is, even at $30, it's still a profit center and a good deal for BB.
read his entire post. "make a stink". mexican food. stereotypical gastrointestinal response to beans and/or greasy meat & cheese.
You're obviously mistaken.
And when you post self-contradictory statements like that, you're also clearly not worth the bother.
You have 30 days from purchase date to add the PSP ...
Besides dealing with the issue through the BBB (which usually gets most issues resolved) you would probably win at your local Small Claims Court as they tend to follow the meaning of a contract, not the wording of a contract, so a "legally binding contract" tends to mean "it may be a legally binding contract but in this instance we think it is unfair" ... (just remember to sue your LOCAL STORE not BB as a whole ... )
Read the warranty. The one I purchased has a specific legal venue. All lawsuits regarding the warranty need to be adjudicated in that venue.
Hmm, the warranty is no longer an added option on the website. Tho I doubt this will affect any of you who have already purchased your warranties. I really don't see them trying to cancel prior warranties as the legal floodgate is way too costly. They'll just move forward and offer the future warranties at a higher price...Good deal for those who got it.
Yep, confirmed. Warranty no longer shows up online.
Surprise me. What legal education or training do you have?
Its not self contradictory at all. I don't think anything less of people just because they aren't lawyers, and I don't expect non-lawyers to have a good understaning of legal concepts, even basic ones.
Triple confirmed! I did this this very test just last night and the $29.99 4-yr warranty was still an option then, so this change took place sometime in the last 18 hours.
Those can be contested in consumer cases - cannot guarantee that you will win, but if it is unduly burrdensome on you to go to the selected venue and not burdensome on BB, a court my choose to disregard it. Especially since this is essentially a non-negotiable contract.
One of the key essences of a contract is good faith. Those of you who bought the $30 warranty knowing that Best Buy was making a mistake were not acting in good faith. You were taking advantage of their mistake. That is the opposite of good faith.
I don't think they'd have much trouble denying your warranty claim. Whether it would be cost effective for them to do so is another question. It may be cheaper to just honor the few warranty replacements that can be expected rather than to pay lawyers to squash you.
If the employee was feeling implicitly threatened, but without any explicit threat, then maybe the employee should have called over a manager or security guard to decide what to do. The customer is not at fault for anything the employee infers without evidence.
The employee represents the store. That's why they're called CSRs: customer service representatives. What the employee does is transitively what the store does. The store sold the warranty when asked for one to go with an S3. It's not the customer's fault if the store didn't price the warranty correctly. All problems are on the employee's head, not the customer's.
I couldn't agree more. No judge is going to think the customer intimidated Best Buy into selling an extended warranty, at least not with out a police report.
Exactly. That's the legal concept of agency. Best Buy is the prinicile and the clerk is Best Buy's agent, vested with actual (as well as apparent) authority to execute contracts on behalf of Best Buy.
Yeah, like the empoyee is going to remember you, of all the thousands of customers he's had to deal with between the time you bought your warranty and when your S3 broke 3 years later...
Hell, what's the liklihood that employee is even going to still be there? BB has a heck of a turnover rate.
The essence of a contract is "meeting of the minds." In general, a unilateral mistake of fact is not legally sufficient to void a contract after formation.
"Good faith" is more of a concept of equity, rather than contract law.