On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:35:13 +0000, MM wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:09:02 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It means they *could* be convicted of a criminal offence. But you
>>would not get any compensation for that.
>>
>>In theory, you could possibly sue for any losses incurred by you as a
>>result of their criminal act, but the amount is too small, and it
>>would be very hard to prove that you would not have bought the item
>>anyhow.
>
>Yeah, well, it's a kind of inertia thievery, really, since not one
>single person can easily prove anything.
>
And it was the "inertia thievery" that the act was specifically set up
to counteract.
Namely the fact that when people find out the real price is not what
they expected, most will still go ahead, even if they might not have
chosen that item if they had realised up front.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You never finish a program, you just stop working on it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |