Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 14 hrs, 46 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 6 days, 3 hrs ago - more...
|
2009-09-30
, 01:12
|
|
Posts: 369 |
Thanked: 191 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Virginia
|
#82
|
Originally Posted by devaler
Hmmm, do you know the meaning of having a clue ?
Hmmm, do you know the meaning of eponysterical?
 |
|
2009-09-30
, 01:14
|
|
Posts: 1,028 |
Thanked: 578 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
@ Chicago
|
#83
|
Originally Posted by Hogwash
-1
Hmmm, do you know the meaning of having a clue ?
ok, I'll play along.
At what point is the transaction "mutually agreed upon?"
IMHO it is when the retailer charges your credit card.
You disagree?
| The Following User Says Thank You to JayOnThaBeat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:24
|
|
Posts: 4,556 |
Thanked: 1,624 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#84
|
Originally Posted by Hogwash
Hmm, I thought someone here had got it working. (http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=55785&postcount=4). Though that was only n800 -> another internet tablet. So not so useful if the other person is using a PC.
True. Skype is the big dog it would seem. However....google voice/video chat doesn't work on linux yet. Showstopper.
If my parents can't see their 17 month-old granddaughter, then I'm canceling my order.
There's also Gizmo 5.
http://www.rahulnair.net/blog/2008/0...a-n800-os2008/
__________________
Originally Posted by ysss
They're maemo and MeeGo...
"Meamo!" sounds like what Zorro would say to catherine zeta jones... after she slaps him for looking at her dirtily...
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:25
|
|
Posts: 369 |
Thanked: 191 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Virginia
|
#85
|
Originally Posted by JayOnThaBeat
Maybe I misinterpreted the post.
-1
ok, I'll play along.
At what point is the transaction "mutually agreed upon?"
IMHO it is when the retailer charges your credit card.
You disagree?
My complaint is with those people that insist on getting cheap goods because of a pricing mistake. They are thieves. If dormant gets precisely what he pays for then that's fine.
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:25
|
|
Posts: 1,028 |
Thanked: 578 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
@ Chicago
|
#86
|
Originally Posted by Hogwash
Let me guess, you cut up coupons?
I actually tried to honor the full price of some steak in Tesco (UK), but they were to afraid of legal action - I was forced to pay the lower price, even though it was morally dishonest to do so.
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:29
|
|
Posts: 1,097 |
Thanked: 650 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#87
|
Originally Posted by Hogwash
So ultimately the correct "fact" dawns on you (after a few n number of posts explaining to you the "mutually agreed clause".
Maybe I misinterpreted the post.
My complaint is with those people that insist on getting cheap goods because of a pricing mistake. They are thieves. If dormant gets precisely what he pays for then that's fine.
What a waste of thread.
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:30
|
|
Posts: 224 |
Thanked: 107 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#88
|
Sorry if there was some confussion, I didn't mean to imply that dormat was trying to rip people off, only saying that I'm not privy to people's thoughts.
Regarding whether the sale need be upheld, I think this is an issue of contract law. The relevant rule is that mistake is a defense to contract, but bad bargaining is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law). Expansys made a guess about what price they could get N900's at and they also insured 99% of their contracts with language that said "we reserve the right to change the price before we charge you." Dormant was the other 1% not covered by that rule since they forced him to pay early. Now Dormant gets to take advantage of his business savvy, it's no more dishonest than someone who sold oil futures at $150/barrel shortly before prices plumetted to $38.
From Dormant's description, both parties had to jump through several hoops to make this transaction, a reasonably prudent person would conclude that a mistake should have been caught somewhere along the way.
Dormant is on the right side of this thing ethically and legally.
Regarding whether the sale need be upheld, I think this is an issue of contract law. The relevant rule is that mistake is a defense to contract, but bad bargaining is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law). Expansys made a guess about what price they could get N900's at and they also insured 99% of their contracts with language that said "we reserve the right to change the price before we charge you." Dormant was the other 1% not covered by that rule since they forced him to pay early. Now Dormant gets to take advantage of his business savvy, it's no more dishonest than someone who sold oil futures at $150/barrel shortly before prices plumetted to $38.
From Dormant's description, both parties had to jump through several hoops to make this transaction, a reasonably prudent person would conclude that a mistake should have been caught somewhere along the way.
Dormant is on the right side of this thing ethically and legally.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bocaJ For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:34
|
|
Posts: 1,028 |
Thanked: 578 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
@ Chicago
|
#89
|
Originally Posted by nilchak
This thread was a waste to begin with.... just look at the title.
So ultimately the correct "fact" dawns on you (after a few n number of posts explaining to you the "mutually agreed clause".
What a waste of thread.
|
|
2009-09-30
, 01:39
|
|
Posts: 1,283 |
Thanked: 370 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ South Florida
|
#90
|
Can we get the thread back on track? This BS is Childish.
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28.
If my parents can't see their 17 month-old granddaughter, then I'm canceling my order.