Submitted by Jabrwock - November 28, 2006 at 4:09 pm -0500139.142.43.31
@DeusPayne
Granted she wouldn't be complaining if the price had dropped. But the scope of the argument is whether she can legally be asked to pay MORE after the contract to purchase was made. Which is of course, a resounding NO. And whether this contitutes fraud, which is a resounding YES.
The least they owe her is her money back for the deposit. The worst for them is if the FTC decides that changing the pre-order to a higher price after the deposit was made constitutes bait and switch.
Bait and switch is illegal, because it's false advertising with the intent to deceive the customer into shopping at your establishment rather than a competitor. Dropping the price after they enter the store isn't fraud, it's sweetening the deal. Increasing the price after they enter the store IS fraud, because they might not have entered into trade with you otherwise.
Delivering late wouldn't be fraud, because they're not changing the terms of the contract she made (unless they guaranteed a delivery date when she plopped down the C-note). Telling her that she can't have the console they have in hand because she refuses to buy extra gear? That's bait and switch.
Posted 07/24/08 at 01:45pm Dark Sovereign: A fitting metaphor lumi
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:21am lumi: their own. Looks like they're arguing with ghosts...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am lumi: Ooh, and to prove the validity of their arguments, they've deleted all the comments from the gamers/outsiders, and just left
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am lumi: Wow...there's worse invective and vitriol on that first feminist site's comments than in most gaming forums I've read...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:19am SimonBob: You guys can read the feminist blogs? One of 'em has over 1400 comments -- my browser locks up when I try to load the page!
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:49am M. Carusi: That's probably the message to describe hardcore feminism in general. :P
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:35am Tom90deg: Meh, it seems like most of the comments are "I'm right, and it you don't agree with me, you're a girl-hating masonogystic pig!"
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:30am M. Carusi: Those comment walls on the feminist blogs complaining about FP are generating some hilarious content.
Posted 07/24/08 at 08:48am E. Zachary Knight: @ lunatic, What you see is what you get. Once a comment gets pushed off it is gone forever.
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Granted she wouldn't be complaining if the price had dropped. But the scope of the argument is whether she can legally be asked to pay MORE after the contract to purchase was made. Which is of course, a resounding NO. And whether this contitutes fraud, which is a resounding YES.
The least they owe her is her money back for the deposit. The worst for them is if the FTC decides that changing the pre-order to a higher price after the deposit was made constitutes bait and switch.
Bait and switch is illegal, because it's false advertising with the intent to deceive the customer into shopping at your establishment rather than a competitor. Dropping the price after they enter the store isn't fraud, it's sweetening the deal. Increasing the price after they enter the store IS fraud, because they might not have entered into trade with you otherwise.
Delivering late wouldn't be fraud, because they're not changing the terms of the contract she made (unless they guaranteed a delivery date when she plopped down the C-note). Telling her that she can't have the console they have in hand because she refuses to buy extra gear? That's bait and switch.