If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I can understand them needing to know what country someone is in for iTunes - some labels restrict sales of their music to certain countries due to copyright issues, or due to other labels having signed the music elsewhere. But why do they need to know anything more than that?
LOL @ what Morrocan Roll wrote on page 1 :-)
@Kira, the users HAVE NO OPTION, to deny or accept, it is ONE WAY. Apple's way. I would have NO problem with accepting a clause that says they can track my location for iAds, but when it's forced upon me and it is MORE than that, then no. iAds alone is being investigated by the FCC [I think it's them] over the legality of it all - I'm sure this too could be added.
When does the user ever sign a deal with Apple?
A company selling a product has the right to dictate the terms of its use.
In theory, why not?
The person providing a product has the right to determine the terms of sale.
If Google made it known, then yes i would have no problem. If they did not, it's fradulent.
In any contract, people should be made known of all clauses and terms. It wouldn't be valid otherwise.
Which is great, except apple have imposed these conditions AFTER people bought the products.
Yeah great argument. :rolleyes: As a blanket statement of fact, it's incorrect, and as a statement of what should be, you fail to back it up with a single reason why it should be the case. Nor do you address a single argument I make, which leads me to believe you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The right to dictate terms of use varies massively based on the product in question. But each one still has to be justified, and you've failed to do so.
Click what? I've bought a phone before. I've never had to click anything. I've had to sign a contract with Vodafone, not Nokia. Nokia couldn't give a shit what I do with their phone. They've got their money and I've got my phone.
Dude, it's best not to bother. He doesn't answer questions, or at least if does they're the ones he's posed to himself in his head.
It's basic consumer law.
If i went to subway, they dictate the price, and all items i can order. It's their product to sell, so it's their own right and prerogative. It may vary on the product, but only subject to law and in a lot of cases the company's own policies.
Oh this apple thing is as if subway let you eat the sandwich, but the next one will be poisoned if you ever buy from anyone else, and they would tell you this after you get the iphone.
Actually, this is more likely to come under the "unreasonable" penalty aspect of consumer law.
Actually they don't.
The contract isn't formed until you pay, until that point you can withdraw from the contract. If they then try to add new contrctual terms (such as their right to watch where you eat and to tell others what you ordered) then you can renegotiate the price, they cnnot take back the sandwich, stop you from eating it or stop you shopping elsewhere.
that's not related to my point. he asked why firms could deny sale, and I told him why.
I did answer it though.
Actually, when you suggest that consumer law allows the seller to dictate terms after a sale then contract law is directly relevant.
Mainly because you shows that you are completely wrong.
The sale and contract have already been agreed, at the point of sale. That's when agreed terms of sale formed the contract.
Erm no it's not. Of course everything you say about Subway is correct, but it bears no resemblance to the debate at hand. Subway certainly can't include a clause in the purchase of the sandwich that dictates when, where and how I can eat the sandwich. Well they can if they want, but it would have no legal authority. Like I said, once the transaction has been completed, it's my sandwich to use as I wish. It is no longer "their product" as you keep trying to claim, it's my product, because I bought it. What you are arguing for is that once they've completed the transaction, they should have a continued influence over what I do with the sandwich, or in Apple's case, the phone. You seem to be under the impression that once an item has been sold, the person or company doing the selling still owns that product. They may own the intellectual property on which that item is based, but they don't own the product itself.
You can't just write whatever you want into a contract, and once it's signed, that becomes legally binding. That's why pre-nups often aren't worth the paper they're written on, and why it is quite possible to demand a replacement or repair for a product that breaks outside of the warranty period.
Anyway, Apple has been found flouting EU and US laws in the past, and I think it'll only be a matter of time before its dodgy business practices are put through the courts again.
I didn't ask why firms could deny sales at all. Although it's worth pointing out in the light of one of your previous comments that a company certainly can't deny a sale on the grounds that someone is black.
In practice, perhaps not. But in theory, yes. A product, prior to sale, is the property of the seller, so he can sell it to who he wants.
If apple, as per the conditions of sale, stated that then there is no wrong here.
The issue here is that it goes beyond the terms of sale.
If per the original terms, then yes.
Yes. But terms of sale, in theory, can mean anything. If a person buys a car on credit, the terms of sale are that the buyer pays installments as payment for it. This is an example.
Erm... this isn't theory.
Yes, agreed terms of sale, at the point of sale. That isn't the case here, is it?
Which is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
Erm no, quite the opposite again. In practice, you can quite easily refuse service to a black person and pretend you're doing so for some other reason. In theory though, it's absolutely illegal to refuse service to someone based on the colour of their skin. It would land the shop owner with a pretty hefty fine if he was found guilty of doing so.