Quote:
Originally Posted by markm
We apparently sit on different sides of the fence, as much as different sides of the Atlantic. Personally, I think that the Kindle (as much as the Sony) is a rich-kids gizmo rather than something of any practical value. It is large, fragile, complex, useless without batteries or Internet, far overpriced, and when used as intended, more expensive and inflexible per publication than the books it strives to replace. That said, having known many Macintosh owners, I completely understand why you're such an Amazon apologist.
E-book readers have the potential to be so much more than they are today. But publishers and self-proclaimed authors' guilds will never allow that to happen. Just imagine if I could slide my library card into the side of my e-book reader and borrow (for free) or rent (for a few cents) a copy of any book ever published. That is a product I'd pay $400 for. Not some proprietary interface to overpriced, DRM-laden temporary copies of books I can never sell or even loan to another person, or take hiking in the woods, or camping in the desert, or sunbathing on the beach.
But I digress. On the matter of Amazon itself I believe that, as a customer paying good money for a supposedly serviceable product, I reserve the right to determine if that product satisfactorily meets its description and specifications upon receipt of the actual physical item, and if not, to either exchange it for one that is satisfactory or return it for a refund.
In a brick-and-mortar system, I can inspect and test a product before I pay and leave the store. In an e-commerce environment, my inspection and testing cannot occur until after I've paid and the item is received. But in either event, how can it be legal or moral for me to be penalized for returning something I find is unacceptable by comparison to its advertised description or specifications, or by comparison to like units of its type?
Are my rights as a participant in a retail exchange not the same just because I chose e-commerce versus brick-and-mortar? Does the concept of Quid Pro Quo not apply? Is Amazon really big enough to redefine the terms of a retail purchase?
What do you think the Federal Trade Commission would say about this? Or better yet, a good class-action law firm?
|
They'd say the same thing the judge would say. You have no just cause. Ian's rights as a customer were not infringed, he was provided with the products and subsequent returns that he requested. Amazon provided books and services under the terms of conditions that were agreed upon at the time of the sale under contract law. When Amazon chose not to continue to do business with him in the future they simply chose to exercise their rights. Brick and Mortar stores can do the same thing. Business don't exist to make customers feel warm and fuzzy inside, they exist to make money. When you have customers that are an expense rather than a revenue the logical thing to do is get rid of them.
You wouldn't work for an employer who makes working for them more expensive than the salary you are paid so why should you expect the opposite?