Jump to content
tavichh

They meant september of next year!

Recommended Posts

Just now, sfhand said:

Not so stupid as to resort to ad hominem...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

So, yes then.

Ad hominem - in this case the "abusive" ad hominem - is only a valid informal fallacy should an attack on character have nothing to do with the argument. However, in this case, your understanding of the relationship between federal law and the concept of legal precedent is incorrect. Since you don't acknowledge that you are incorrect in believing that a legal battle be necessary to ascertain whether or not federal law applies here, I can only assume:

a) You are incapable of understanding

b) You are intentionally acting as if you misunderstand to create an argument

If you are truly a) and not b), you can learn more about how you're more recently wrong by reading this book: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snake726 said:

So, yes then.

Ad hominem - in this case the "abusive" ad hominem - is only a valid informal fallacy should an attack on character have nothing to do with the argument. However, in this case, your understanding of the relationship between federal law and the concept of legal precedent is incorrect. Since you don't acknowledge that you are incorrect in believing that a legal battle be necessary to ascertain whether or not federal law applies here, I can only assume:

a) You are incapable of understanding

b) You are intentionally acting as if you misunderstand to create an argument

If you are truly a) and not b), you can learn more about how you're more recently wrong by reading this book: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx

Keep digging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sfhand said:

Keep digging...

You quoted the wrong material.

Here's the same website you Googled advising as per the prompt delivery regulation. Nice try though bucko.

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html

"The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws."

"The 30-Day Rule focuses solely on the method of ordering. It doesn't matter how the product is advertised or who initiates the sale. If a customer orders by any of the above methods, the shipment is covered by the Rule."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone interested, this is why most businesses do not charge for a pre-order until the actual date (pledge systems such as GMT for instance), because (among other reasons) it successfully skirts this FTC regulation.

However, once a transaction has occurred, a reasonable date must be supplied and, if not, then the FTC provision says 30 days is implicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

You quoted the wrong material.

Here's the same website you Googled advising as per the prompt delivery regulation. Nice try though bucko.

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html

"The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws."

"The 30-Day Rule focuses solely on the method of ordering. It doesn't matter how the product is advertised or who initiates the sale. If a customer orders by any of the above methods, the shipment is covered by the Rule."

Thanks for the link, here's the relevant part:

If the business is unable to ship within the promised time or within 30 days, the merchant must promptly tell the customer by mail, telephone or email, and give a new shipping estimate and give the customer a chance to cancel their order and receive a full refund. 

The promised time was on the sales page and is in the sales policy. BF is still able to ship within the promised time. Game. Set. Match. Europe is of no concern to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sfhand said:

Thanks for the link, here's the relevant part:

If the business is unable to ship within the promised time or within 30 days, the merchant must promptly tell the customer by mail, telephone or email, and give a new shipping estimate and give the customer a chance to cancel their order and receive a full refund. 

The promised time was on the sales page and is in the sales policy. BF is still able to ship within the promised time. Game. Set. Match. Europe is of no concern to me.

There was no promised time, and BF explicitly states that they do not accept refunds.

It's on the page you didn't read:

NO REFUND POLICY
Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snake726 said:

There was no promised time, and BF explicitly states that they do not accept refunds.

It's on the page you didn't read:

NO REFUND POLICY
Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased.

There was a promised time it's on the page you claim I didn't read... you're killing me. The no refund policy is not a matter of the FTC law you cite since the promised time hasn't been exceeded. It would fall under the jurisdiction of state law as the link I provided earlier clarified. I did look at the Europe link, not a court ruling, just some grousing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me - did you receive a "prompt" message from Battlefront once the "time" of the "end of September" had passed?

Do you think that, based upon your reading of the sales policy, you could have gotten a refund?

This is really a pedantic activity, since I do not intend to cancel my order, but surely you'll submit that - failing some further reading comprehension issue - the fact of the matter is that Battlefront does not comply with U.S. federal law in this case and, by the grace of their consumers who gladly pay above-market prices for their products, nobody cares to give them trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sfhand said:

There was a promised time it's on the page you claim I didn't read... you're killing me. The no refund policy is not a matter of the FTC law you cite since the promised time hasn't been exceeded. It would fall under the jurisdiction of state law as the link I provided earlier clarified. I did look at the Europe link, not a court ruling, just some grousing.

Tell me friend - on what date would you consider an order placed for delivery by "the end of September" to be late?

Do you consider the end of September to be a period; say, the 22nd to 31st? Or do you consider it to be the last day of the month, the 31st?

[Edit: Apparently you consider the end of September to occur sometime in October.]

Hilariously, in either case, Battlefront did not inform anyone of the date slippage, and, if they had, would not have extended a refund.

What is your point? To continue to embarrass yourself?

Edited by Snake726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll spell this one out for you.

This article is about state law: https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/return-policies-and-refunds.html

This article is about federal law: https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html

It is clear which legislation takes precedence: "The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get why people are annoyed about CMSF 2. It's near. It will come before Christmas. It's first in line. God, if only that would count for the CMRT module too, I would be over the moon and take a couple of weeks delay with a big smile on my face. Those waiting for CMSF 2 are so lucky.

Edited by Aragorn2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, since I'm in a giving mood, here's the paperwork and the section in question: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-22092.pdf

"D. The Effect of the Rule on State and Local Laws

Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

Tell me - did you receive a "prompt" message from Battlefront once the "time" of the "end of September" had passed?

Do you think that, based upon your reading of the sales policy, you could have gotten a refund?

This is really a pedantic activity, since I do not intend to cancel my order, but surely you'll submit that - failing some further reading comprehension issue - the fact of the matter is that Battlefront does not comply with U.S. federal law in this case and, by the grace of their consumers who gladly pay above-market prices for their products, nobody cares to give them trouble.

The end of September was not the promised release date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I really don't get why people are annoyed about CMSF 2. It's near. It will come before Christmas. It's first in line. God, if only that would count for the CMRT module too, I would be over the moon and take a couple of weeks delay with a big smile on my face. Those waiting for CMSF 2 are so lucky.

My God, dear lord, I am not annoyed with it, I am annoyed with the tight-asses who are annoyed by mentioning that Battlefront communicates very poorly.

I don't give a **** if they don't communicate, but don't try and tell me it's not ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sfhand said:

The end of September was not the promised release date.

"The obvious question out there is "when will CMSF2 ship?" We're aiming for no later than the end of September. However, we'll soon release a demo with 4 battles and a training mission. That should help keep you occupied for a while."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snake726 said:

"The obvious question out there is "when will CMSF2 ship?" We're aiming for no later than the end of September. However, we'll soon release a demo with 4 battles and a training mission. That should help keep you occupied for a while."

That's not a promise, the promise is in the Sales Policy that you think I didn't read. LMFAO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

My God, dear lord, I am not annoyed with it, I am annoyed with the tight-asses who are annoyed by mentioning that Battlefront communicates very poorly.

I don't give a **** if they don't communicate, but don't try and tell me it's not ****.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sfhand said:

That's not a promise, the promise is in the Sales Policy that you think I didn't read. LMFAO...

NO REFUND POLICY
Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sfhand said:

And I am on the record as saying I wish we could get more info from BF... so don't be fooled by disingenuous arguments.

Well, then leave it at that, guys. Arguments like this can only get out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sfhand said:

Sigh.
 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-22092.pdf

"D. The Effect of the Rule on State and Local Laws

Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...