Thursday, September 20, 2018
1:17:37 PM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Windows OS

Forums | Windows OS Forums search
Forum FAQ
 Previous Page 1 | 2  
Person gets refund after unistalling windows vista
16/8/08 1:54:58 PM

The issue here is not that the guy doesn't want Windows; it's that he doesn't agree with the full terms of the EULA. This is a situation where he has bought a product and then, afterward, been asked to sign a contract in order to use what he has already paid for. Why should he have to sign a contract he doesn't agree with? They aren't giving him anything in return for signing it. And you can't say they're giving him the right to use the software in exchange for signing because they already gave him that right in exchange for his money at the time of purchase. He is being asked to give something up without getting anything in return! Why should he (or anyone) be obliged to do this?

Interestingly, the EULA may not constitute a valid contract since a there is no consideration (legal term - explained below)offered by the organisation providing the software. The presumed way that the EULA can be considered a valid contract is if the purchaser has the right to a refund for the product in the event that they do not agree to the full terms of the EULA.

This is a largely untested area of contract law. Many public interest groups have been seeking legal clarification on this issue for some time in response to increasingly "anti-consumer" EULA terms. That clarification has been slow to arrive and prodding like that described in the article is designed to build a case that may eventually force the courts to clarify this area of contract law by providing some kind of precedent.

Consideration is a central concept in the common law of contracts and contract theory: it is value paid for a promise. Consideration is needed for a valid contract. An example; If you sign a contract with a man, agreeing to buy his car for an amount of money, his consideration is the car, which he promises to give to you. Your consideration is the money that you pay for the car. However, a contract saying that he would give you his car for nothing would not be valid per se, because you aren't giving him any consideration. In basic terms, the offeree (that is the person being offered something) must give something back to the offeror in return for his promise.

EDIT: I personally think this thread would be better suited to the Tech Talk or Software forums.

Edited by fLuXeD: 16/8/2008 02:00:04 PM


16/8/08 7:31:17 PM

An EULA is definitely not a contract, and agreeing to one is not the same as signing.

The issue is that she wanted to raise some noise, and could have avoided this by purchasing a laptop without windows.

Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

19/8/08 7:16:48 PM

i think the point is that the HP hardware + vista constitutes the package that the user willingly purchased. If you don't like the EULA, then don't agree to it and don't use the license but you should not be able to arbitrarily break up the packaged offer. Clearly HP has the right to decide how their hardware is sold, including bundled software. If you don't like the license agreement, then don't use the software or buy something else. Simple.

If you by any other item and don't like one particular part of the whole product, does that allow you to claim a refund on it? No it doesn't. I got a remote control with my xbox360 that I have never used. Should microsoft have to refund me some money if I want to return it? No. That is my problem, not theirs.


19/8/08 7:35:24 PM
And, the laptop no doubt came with other OEM software, nero, office or whatever, but she did not bother claiming back each peice of software, because it does not suit her goals. Which is interesting, as OEM office(2007) is generally more expensive than OEM vista.

Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

20/8/08 3:51:04 PM

I can see it fro mboth perspectives. If I was to buy a laptop, I'd want to buy one that'll serve my needs best and has the best supported hardware for the OS I choose to run and operations I choose to perform. As stated previously, I don't think it's fair that one should be limited in their hardware selection due to the bundled OS, especially if you're trying to spend as little money as possible.

I also am very contemptuous for the whole pre-installation of the OS. I think the hardware should come with no OS installed. If an OS is bundled, it should come on REAL install media, with a real license key, all shrink-wrapped so non-MS users can take it back i na tidy package and request their refund.

If it's done properly, there should be no reason why laptop manufacturers can't do this, and the only party that's going to lose out is MS, and that's the cost of doing business in a competitive world.

People also shouldn't be forced to buy a license for software they may already own. If you own a copy of XP, upgrade to Vista, and then go and buy a new machine and decide you'd like to run XP on it, you should be able to, using your already existing license without shelling out for another.

And forget about the legal side of whether the manufacturers are within their rights or not to do this, because even if they are, it's still pretty damn rude.

"Grandfather had an accident, he got burnt." "Oh no, how bad?" "Well, they don't fuck around at the crematorium."

20/8/08 7:16:31 PM

i totally disagree. Large companies like HP and Dell offer a complete solution, not just the hardware. This is the basis for their whole business. Apple is the same, the OS and hardware constitute the complete package they sell. If you don't like that package then buy something else. Seriously, it's not like any of the hardware solutions are particularly unique.

And this whole e-lawyer nonsense annoys me too. Nobody makes you buy the product OR agree to the software EULA. That is your choice as a consumer.

When I bought my new car, I didn't get to choose the brand of factory fitted tyres and Mazda was certainly under no obligation to refund me the tyre component of the total cost if I chose to immediately change them to a different brand. That is just a stupid argument. Should they have to offer cars with "your choice tyres" to suit everyone's personal tastes. No. You put up with the ones they give you or you wear the cost of replacement.


20/8/08 7:22:26 PM

Please point me in the direction of a laptop maker that does not sell windows as part of purchase, I've looked around on the dell site and cant find the ubuntu service advertised anywhere on the australia site. Do they offer it here, just not advertise it?

So I think that what they done is perfectly fine - although a bit petty. If they live somethere where a no os laptop or open source laptop is not sold, then they are perfectly with in their rights to say i don't wish to purchase this part of the product. But doing it after the purchase of the laptop is questionable.

The Olympic spirit http://xkcd.com/284/

20/8/08 7:24:47 PM

true, it is within your rights to ask. But the vendor is certainly under no obligation to supply what you are asking for.

Hey Maccas, I don't want pickles on my BigMac, refund me 10c. Puhleeze,...

Edited by homer: 20/8/2008 07:29:44 PM


20/8/08 7:31:26 PM
The problem is she is not doing it because she wants the money back, she is doing it to make microsoft and hp look bad. Itis almost so she bought it so she could do that exactly. If it was after money, she would get more money back by going after the rest of her OEM software, or she could have bought a decent linux laptop in the US.


In aus I don't know, but she is in the US, and there are many.




Are some.

Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

20/8/08 10:53:02 PM

According to her, she is doing it because she could not agree to the EULA.


 Previous Page 1 | 2  
Forums | Windows OS