We're being sued
-
@KattMan said:
As for the ticket thing, it took no ones time but a computer, and I woudl like to know how they say the concert is free, can you go without a ticket? If not, then you are not just paying for the service of getting a ticket, which you apparently don't need, this is akin to them admitting to ripping you off. I bet a portion of the proceeds go to the concert promoters, artist etc. It is not a fee to get the ticket.
What about the hundreds of developer hours it took to build the ticketing system? You can get them dirt cheap from Hyberiabad, but certainly not free.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
What about the hundreds of developer hours it took to build the ticketing system? You can get them dirt cheap from Hyberiabad, but certainly not free.
All web shops have to be developed first, and physical shops are even more expensive. While obviously that investment is paid for by customers when they buy stuff, only ticket vendors decided that the service of selling you a ticket, and not the service of providing you with the concert, is what you actually purchased. No other web shop will say: "We had to develop this web shop software, so that's what you paid for. The service we provided to you, sending you a parcel with a vacuum cleaner, has already been completed. The fact that this vacuum cleaner is defective has nothing to do with your purchase, so sadly, we can't refund you."
-
@pnieuwkamp said:
It's meant as a means against door-to-door salesmen who foist useless crap onto unsuspecting victims without giving them a chance to test the product. They've extended this to online purchases (software, built to order and services excluded) because you can't test a JPG for fitness for a particular task.
I take it you also need someone to remind you to wear a jacket when it is cold out, so you don't catch a cold. There should probably be some kind of law about that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I take it you also need someone to remind you to wear a jacket when it is cold out, so you don't catch a cold. There should probably be some kind of law about that.
That law was recently abolished, and look at the problems it caused.
-
-
@Peraninth said:
I just found out we're getting sued. A customer who paid for a service on one of our websites wants his money back. He called and asked for a refund and was told something along the lines of "We're sorry but the fee says it was not refundable right next to where you paid". He is sueing us for $35. Fortunately we're a pretty big company with full time lawyers on the payroll. Unfortunately, now that the lawyers are involved all kinds of crazy is happening. We've been told we need to change the wording on the site to say "non refundable" instead of "not refundable". I'm sure there is a really important difference there that I'm just not smart enough to understand. I'm also sure that by now this $35 lawsuit has cost our company at least several thousand dollars.
About 10 years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit (I was neither the plantiff nor the defendant, merely a witness) that hinged on the difference between "will" and "shall" in a contract, it was for way more than $35 [about 10K time more]
-
-
@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:
Wow, I do not know what to say.@Anketam said:
Filed under: Venison tastes awesome
-
@mrsparkyman said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
difference between "will" and "shall" in a contract
Which is?The contention was that there is an element of requirement associated with "shall" that does not exist with "will". The surrounding context came into play as well. The jist of it was that provided the the capability eventually existed or even remained a potential/viable possibility that there was no violation per se of a satement indicating that "X will Y" as there is was not any timeframe specified by the enclosing context. On the other hand, "shall" was presented as "will be required to" and therefore necessitated specific plans to actually realize (i.e. potential possibility was not sufficient).
Ever since then, I have been sensitive to this wording, and have noticed that most established contracts [expecially financial load documents from a number of transactions] almost invariable use the term "shall". In the case I was refering to, the resolution was that the defendent provided the required functionallity, which was deemed to meet the "will" clause, and the Plantiff was denied any damage claims even though the capability was finally implemented over a year after the point in time where they actually needed it for their business requirements...
