Author: Mr j smith
Date: 09:50:24 06/18/03
For those who continue to insist that Chessbase has wronged them by not including 2 free engines with their purchase of Junior 8, in the face of the plain meaning of the advertisments (which clearly state that only Deep Junior purchasers receive the 2 free engines ), in contrast to the ambiguous cd covers, and example from the real world may help show why your whining will fail to bring you satisfaction. Suppose that a franchise holder of Mercedes Benz automobiles places an ad in various newspapers and by accident the people in charge of the advertising copy switch prices and certain details of a Mercedes Benz with a plain old Ford sedan. In my example instead of selling for $50,000 the Benz was advertised for $10,000. Do you think it would be both fair and legal for Mercedes Benz to honor such a mistake? Of course not. There is no court in the United States that would honor such an obvious mistake, and in the United States, there is the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which deals with such issues. From the examples of advertised print that I have seen it would seem that there was a mistake on the part of the advertisement department of Chessbase, which Chessbase almost immediately rectified. The mistake however is only superficial; the CD cover. A careful reading of all the ad copy clearly states that only Deep Junior 8 was offering 2 free engines, not Junior8.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.