Author: margolies,marc
Date: 16:53:34 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
the brit law uses the standard "fit for their purpose." and you say there's no thing as "perfect" software hence all software is refundable.but your are not applying a legal standard in the quest for perfection.(maybe the 'Paul Keres' standard?) You remind me a little bit of my late father because he tried to stiff the anesthetist when I was born. And clearly I am not perfect, but I am fit for my purpose. (PS the anesthetist did try to overcharge dad--an accountant-- and he got stiffed.) cheers, marc On June 18, 2003 at 16:53:47, Alastair Scott wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 15:53:35, Darren Rushton wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 15:17:18, Alex wrote: >> >>>Apparantly the Deep Junior issue is getting ..........ugly........ Alex. >> >>Note these points in UK law >> >>The main statutes that cover your rights when shopping or buying a service are >>The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as >>amended). >> >>1.)The law says that goods must be of 'satisfactory quality' - goods must be >>free from defects except when they have been brought to your attention. >> >>2.)They must be 'fit for their purpose' - this includes if the seller assures >>you they are capable of performing the way you describe you want them to. >> >>3.) They must be 'as described' - if you buy a product that has a label stating >>the product is 100% fat free, then that is what you should get. > >These are indeed very powerful ... but I wonder if anyone has bothered to test >them against software? > >On a literal interpretation, everything would fail as there is no such thing as >perfect software; all software is released with (known and unknown) bugs. >However, the usual criterion for not fixing known bugs is: > >- no effect on user or data; > >- fixing would have unpredictable effects on other parts of the software; > >- the effort expended on fixing would be better spent elsewhere. > >I did have one run-in regarding software, which eventually failed on the absurd >grounds that a CD-ROM cover was not considered to be advertising (so what is >it?) > >Alastair
This page took 0 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.