Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 10:05:13 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 12:50:24, Mr j smith wrote: >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. This is a different case. An error in an ad, don't give you the right to make a purchase based on that error. If you already bought a product and it lacks certain assured characteristics (due to an error in the ad for example) you have the right to demand either a fix or a compensation. > >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.