Author: Matthew White
Date: 19:32:13 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 21:33:23, Matthew White wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 18:54:04, Mr j smith wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 18:02:23, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2003 at 14:04:21, Mr j smith wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2003 at 13:05:13, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>No it isnt a different case. Its the same logic. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I'm afraid not. I'm not a lawyer but I had a course in civil law in the >>>university and there is a big difference between these two cases. the difference >>>is mainly due to the fact that in one case you already purchased the product, >>>which gives you certain rights in your example you didn't yet purchased the >>>product which gives you not such rights. I could quote for you the paragraphs of >>>the german civil law - but I think you are not interested. I'm pretty sure that >>>in America these laws are similiar. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>No, >> >> >>Germany and most of Europe has laws based on the Roman civil code. In America, >>our laws are based upon the English Common law. >> >>As I have stated, from what I have seen, it seems that Chessbase doesnt have to >>provide free engines since its ads clearly state that the engines are included >>with Deep Junior only. > >You are simply wrong here. Its previous ads clearly stated that two engines >would be included. You keep calling them free engines, however, the customers >are paying for them... Many customers bought Junior 8 expecting to receive the >engine that gave Kasparov a hard time in the match. That is not what they got. >Also, you keep mentioning that Deep Junior purchasers will receive two engines >according to the ads... In reality, they receive 3 engines. ^Fixing my typo above
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.