4G roll out...

[bworley50]

Ok now you're definitely pulling off an appeal to authority. The bottom line is, unless it's part of an agreement upon purchase (contract, agreement, or something explicitly labeled on the box), you don't have any legal basis. Companies have to amend and push back launch dates and upgrades all the time, but they don't get sued unless there are extreme delays in certain cases. Can you name the law, or a precedent that would show that they are liable?

And you probably picked the worst example with Jesus. He claimed the Tribulation and end of days would be coming soon after his resurrection, but here we are nearly 2000 years later still putting up with his delays. What an *******.

Ah yes. He was smart enough to say "soon," not the end of Q2. I suppose now my assumptions are correct. Bottom line is that when a company EXPRESSLY and IN WRITING says something then doesn't follow through, there are legal ramifications for such express statements. It is a separate contract.. The good news for you is that you have many years to get smarter. If you are looking for specifics, please find the law book Contracts by Westlaw. Or just do a Google search for contract law an its components. OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, and CONSIDERATION(money).

 

[dhendriksen]

bworley50, let me know how your ridiculous law suit goes. Without a doubt one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh tonight.

 

[bworley50]

bworley50, let me know how your ridiculous law suit goes. Without a doubt one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh tonight.

No problem. They still have some time to get it right. Glad you think it's rediculous. I feel bad that we have so many ignorant people in this country. Makes it easier to be successful.

 

[Live2ride883]

You're wrong. They expressly, that means in writing, guaranteed that the device would be upgraded by the end of Q2. That would be end of
June . So anyone could sue for specific performance, which means upgrade the device, or sue for damages, which means something of value. Most companies would simply offer some sort of monetary compensation rather than fighting it out in court. I am assuming you never went to law school. If that is the case I would recommend you stick to what you know. If you did go to law school I would suggest you ask for a refund.

Good luck with that I am sure that even if you attempt to sue them Motorola has a team of lawyers that will tie it up in court for as long as they like.

Next, my opinion is that this would be a frivolous lawsuit, kinda like the old lady that took McD's to court because she burned her tongue on the coffee, even though she knew it would be hot she did it because there wasn't a warning label on the cup. She eventually won but do you think McD's actually paid for the litigation, or did the consumer pay in the form of higher prices or the delay in the possible reduction in price of other menu items....

 

[anon(167668)]

Ah yes. He was smart enough to say "soon," not the end of Q2. I suppose now my assumptions are correct. Bottom line is that when a company EXPRESSLY and IN WRITING says something then doesn't follow through, there are legal ramifications for such express statements. It is a separate contract.. The good news for you is that you have many years to get smarter. If you are looking for specifics, please find the law book Contracts by Westlaw. Or just do a Google search for contract law an its components. OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, and CONSIDERATION(money).

How in the hell does this fall under contract law? There isn't any contract that says anything about the upgrade being available in Q2. If it were in a sale agreement or on the product labeling then it would fall under contract law, but it wasn't. And no, the email is not a contract because it is not a mutual agreement; it was simply information they provided to you, and was not used in any type of contract. You can continue to act condescending while providing nothing of substance, or you can come up with concrete examples of something like this being shown to violate a law.

 

[bworley50]

Good luck with that I am sure that even if you attempt to sue them Motorola has a team of lawyers that will tie it up in court for as long as they like.

Next, my opinion is that this would be a frivolous lawsuit, kinda like the old lady that took McD's to court because she burned her tongue on the coffee, even though she knew it would be hot she did it because there wasn't a warning label on the cup. She eventually won but do you think McD's actually paid for the litigation, or did the consumer pay in the form of higher prices or the delay in the possible reduction in price of other menu items....

either way she won. Not frivolous. That judgment was reduced on appeal. They do have a team of lawyers and it would be less expensive to settle than go to court. The whole goal of a suit would be for them to do what they have said they were going to do, not to receive compensation. Someone please tell me what is wrong with putting legal pressure on a company to do what they promise.
HYPO:
Ford touts a new Explorer that is widely reported to run on both gasoline and/or liquified natural gas. You save your money to buy one. Come to find out a month before it hits the dealership that the liquified natural gas part will not be available at launch. You go check it out and the window sticker says the liquified natural gas component is not yet available but will be upgradeable soon. You buy it anyway. You wait awoke and email Ford and they say you have to bring the car to the dealership for the upgrade and that upgrade will be available to you in Q2. Q2 comes and goes and there is no fix. You're telling me you have NO legal recourse, and that any legal action you pursue would be frivolous? Come one. All you guys are smarter than that. I LOVE Motorola and their products, but they dropped the ball on this one and should be punished for that.

 

[bworley50]

How in the hell does this fall under contract law? There isn't any contract that says anything about the upgrade being available in Q2. If it were in a sale agreement or on the product labeling then it would fall under contract law, but it wasn't. And no, the email is not a contract because it is not a mutual agreement; it was simply information they provided to you, and was not used in any type of contract. You can continue to act condescending while providing nothing of substance, or you can come up with concrete examples of something like this being shown to violate a law.

Please read the basics of contract law. There are three elements, offer, acceptance, and consideration. Consideration is defined as something of value(usually money), or a promise to perform a future act. They offered the product, I accepted it, and paid for it. They promised to provide the upgrade by Q2, and I accepted. They now have till the end of the month to provide it or else they have breached the contract. Not the original contract, but the subsequent one: offer-upgrade the device, acceptance-i accept, consideration-have it done by Q2. This isn't rocket science.

 

[anon(167668)]

No, there was no offer or acceptance regarding the Q2 update. They simply provided you with information, which certainly isn't a contract. There was no acceptance on your part. There was no mechanism of accepting or rejecting it, and it it would be unenforceable. If a company offers an accessory for a product you have on a certain date, you certainly can't sue them if the release is pushed back.

Once again, produce examples or precedent. You're the one claiming they would be breaking the law; the onus is on you..

 

[bworley50]

No, there was no offer or acceptance regarding the Q2 update. They simply provided you with information, which certainly isn't a contract. There was no acceptance on your part. There was no mechanism of accepting or rejecting it, and it it would be unenforceable. If a company offers an accessory for a product you have on a certain date, you certainly can't sue them if the release is pushed back.

Once again, produce examples or precedent. You're the one claiming they would be breaking the law; the onus is on you..

Its not an accessory. They promised to provide a service. I could easily reject it by refusing to send it in. That service or product is suppossed to be available by a certain date. If it is not, they are breaching their contract.

 

[bworley50]

No, there was no offer or acceptance regarding the Q2 update. They simply provided you with information, which certainly isn't a contract. There was no acceptance on your part. There was no mechanism of accepting or rejecting it, and it it would be unenforceable. If a company offers an accessory for a product you have on a certain date, you certainly can't sue them if the release is pushed back.

Once again, produce examples or precedent. You're the one claiming they would be breaking the law; the onus is on you..

again please read the principles of contract law. You might learn something.

 

[anon(167668)]

Its not an accessory. They promised to provide a service. I could easily reject it by refusing to send it in. That service or product is suppossed to be available by a certain date. If it is not, they are breaching their contract.

If you reject it by not sending it in, then the only way to accept it would be to send it in, meaning by your own terms you have not accepted the "contract", making your point moot anyway. Once again, the contract was made at the point of sale, and no date was given for that.

Come up with an example.

 

[anon(167668)]

again please read the principles of contract law. You might learn something.

Stop with this ****. It's lazy debating and only makes your stance look worse.

 

[Live2ride883]

Stop with this ****. It's lazy debating and only makes your stance look worse.

I agree, at this point there is nothing in this worth reading and people will start flaming this thread soon enough. Heck I am tempted to make him an off to buy his Xoom just so he won't be able to complain about something that regardless of anything else is irrelevant at this time.

Yes the above comment in its entirty is my opinion...

 

[bworley50]

Carlill v carbonic 1892
Fibrosa v Fairbain 1943

 

[bworley50]

I love my Xoom. Have no intentions to sell it

 

[Live2ride883]

What about suing the game developers for not delivering on Duke nukem forever, or for taking so long to deliver starcraft 2, or any other game that was announced but never developed?


For all you know Motorola may be planning to include a free SD card if they run past what you are referring to as the official due date, or there could be valid reasons for the delay. Perhaps there are problems with the supply chain that are beyond Moto's ability to control. Maybe they are having difficulty getting the 4g radio to function properly. We don't know what the problem is or even if there is a problem and the are not required to tell us.

Personally I like having my Xoom now instead of it still being in their warehouse waiting for the 4g radio to be installed and waiting for the SD card slot to get activated.

Either way like I stated earlier it is all irrelevant because that date hasn't past.

 

[bworley50]

Rooted so sd card works. Your points are valid. The difference is that they said, in writing, that it would ne completed by Q2.

 

[dhendriksen]

She just said Q2, not Q2 2011. Maybe she meant 2013? Maybe she meant Q2 of their fiscal year starting in 2015? Maybe she meant Q2 based on a calendar that stats the date the product its made available to them? Maybe Q2 is the name of the facility where the task will be completed and no date reference at all!

This is stupid, and you're taking it way too far. Filing a law suit won't make them produce the product quicker, I'm sure they'll make it available to us once it is available to them. They have no incentive not to.

 

[bworley50]

Really?

 

[markp9334]

noo