Quote:
hudamanium, I don't know what your argument is.
If you think the "real world" operates independently from the law itself you are mistaken. I've dealt with the intersection of the law and real life the better part of my adult life. What's on the books is the real world. It might seem academic, but what happens in the law affects the real world.
Are you saying that a mistake should be enforced under contract law? I can argue the other way, convincingly. I can show you where courts and legislatures say this is not so.
Ethically, I can make an argument that it is best to forgive mistakes and treat others well.
As for representing Head-Fi, I have zero reservations about arguing for the rule of law and treating others well. That might not be a popular opinion under every circumstance, but I will argue for what I think is right and fair. I don't care if people think they are entitled to the benefit of a mistake. Keep in mind that if you make a mistake, I'll stick up for you, too. If you accidentally listed something for much less than it was worth, you better believe that you would have my support.
It is about doing the right thing - not the most popular thing.
My problem was the threat of banning if this threat "got out of hand" or if people decide to sell these headphones on this website.
Now. My argument was not that they are required by law honor their "contract". Or whether it actually is a contract in the first place. One of my arguments was that if a company advertises a certain price for an item, they should honor the price they are advertising it. They certainly aren't obligated to (thats my other point) but in my opinion they should.
If your argument is pretty much just picking on my choice of words. I sorry, I'm not a lawyer. maybe the word "contract" brings up some angry feelings. I can understand that. I hate it when people don't understand what I'm studying either and make assumptions. For that I'm sorry. However, my argument doesn't revolve around that word, please feel free to replace it with a word that is a little more fitting.
Another argument was that they are free to cancel these orders. Nothing is stopping them. Pretty self explanitory. No one is being a thief for buying it, then the company deciding to ship the order. And the company isn't in the wrong for not honoring the orders.
Lastly. Like I said, look at this from another point of view. Other people have said the same. Stuff like this happens because of our American captalistic system. Companies only have the obligation to their shareholders. If that involves ripping off consumers big time, theres no reason why they won't (except when competition comes up). Similarly, as consumers we have adopted a system were we try to get the best for what be pay for. I see nothing wrong with this (in perspective of our current system).
If you want to continue arguing this, I see it more of an argument of our consumerism/captalistic system than anything else. And in this case we can both be right because there is honestly no right answer.
EDIT: I like the idea of shutting up about it. I have yet to see a good argument for the opposing side, not that there aren't any but they just haven't popped up yet. I see people avoiding the questions, attacking people personally, and saying they're right because they are. Those are not arguments. Either way I like talking about it because I enjoy a good debate. It isn't a good debate, and its late. I will stop talking about this if there seems to be no intelligent discussion.