Pancakes R Us
Member
Apples Maps is free. Not sure what would happen there, you have other options.
I argued the sales of goods act in trying to get a refund on battlefield 4.
Very cursory look seems like it echoes what's in that already.
All this means is you guys are getting games dead last.
Apples Maps is free. Not sure what would happen there, you have other options.
A reasonable time in terms such as is generally what a non biased reasonable person would consider OK, this isn't really a flaw and is a common thing in sales laws when dealing with fixing faults etc (as you can't really have a blanket timeframe to fix over different products).It looks highly flawed IMO
What is a reasonable time? Week? Year?
welp good luck hardline.....
The Consumer Rights Bill
More significant reforms to contracts involving digital content are contained within the Consumer Rights Bill. In particular, the Consumer Rights Bill will (if enacted in its current proposed form) imply the following terms:
These terms will also apply to any modification of the digital content (e.g. updates and patches). If digital content forms only a part of the goods, a failure to comply with the digital content requirements will mean the goods as a whole do not fulfil the terms of the contract. Where digital content does not conform to statutory requirements the consumer will usually have a right to obtain a repair/replacement, or a reduction in price.
- Satisfactory quality: there will be an implied term that digital content will be of satisfactory quality, taking into account the contents description, price and other relevant circumstances (including public statements, labelling and advertising). Digital content must also be fit for purpose, free from minor defects, safe and durable. Digital content will not be unsatisfactory as a result of things specifically drawn to the consumers attention before contracting, which are revealed (or ought to be revealed) by the consumer examining the digital content, or where the consumer has benefited from a trial version which ought to make such a thing apparent.
- Fit for particular purpose: it will be implied that digital content is for any purpose made known to the supplier (expressly or by implication).
- Content matches description: the content must be as described by the supplier, which includes a requirement that it match (or is better than) any trial version provided to the consumer.
So in what scenarios would this work?
If I buy a game on steam and it's really buggy, do I get a refund?
So in what scenarios would this work?
If I buy a game on steam and it's really buggy, do I get a refund?
Only if it wasn't mentioned in the description that it's really buggy, I think? So for example if it's labelled as Early Access you probably wouldn't get a refund.
EDIT: also obviously I am not a lawyer so do not take my advice as gospel
lol Could you imagine them trying to pass something like this in the United States?
There would be a civil war...
How would they replace it?
The article doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
So if a game sucks, the company will try fix it or replace it? Then they can return some of the money? Or they can return all of the money?
I'm guessing Valve can't replace a game. Either they'll give you a refund or do nothing.
As it states in the rules, not exactly - but it can lead to something similar. A strait up refund is only applied if the product was not meant to be sold to you (see the 3rd bolded rule), however due to rule 1 and 2 you can get it replaced (likely with another game) or get a price reduction up to the full amount, the price reduction is basically a refund in all but name as if you got a price reduction of 100% you'd get all your money back.So in what scenarios would this work?
If I buy a game on steam and it's really buggy, do I get a refund?
Yes and no, they can offer you an amount BUT you don't have to accept that amount, you can argue that it isn't enough if you don't think it is. This is where it becomes tricky though (as with any faulty/refunding sales laws), the only true way to determine the correct amount is via a court order, BUT most companies will never really want this to happen as any court order would set a legal precedent and could cause them a massive issue - unfortunately its very hard for any sales laws to put in set amounts as all cases are different, and you can't really blanket statement everything under 1 rule of you need to refund 75% (an example) because in some cases it would be blatantly unfair to either side.So instead of getting your money back for BF4, they can decide how much a broken game is worth themselves, and refund you the difference?
Some serious bullshit.
Is this why all the purchases from Nintendo eShop, in the UK at least, asks you to agree that your statutory rights are void if you are buying =/
Doesn't mean anything. UK law over rides any kind of EULA type bullshit. No company can declare your rights void, the only case where there may be exceptions made is for Steam early access where the buyer knowingly purchases an unfinished product. Otherwise if it is sold as a finished product Nintendo, Sony, MS and others can force you to agree to get butt-fucked every hour on the hour but it doesn't mean anything under UK law.
How would they replace it?
The article doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
So if a game sucks, the company will try fix it or replace it? Then they can return some of the money? Or they can return all of the money?
I'm guessing Valve can't replace a game. Either they'll give you a refund or do nothing.
Doesn't mean anything. UK law over rides any kind of EULA type bullshit. .
Not really worth a thread, but it looks like Sony have altered the UK store for this, in order to wave a cool down period for the purchase. I had to agree to updated terms, likely to reflect this.
Looks like it gets them out of following the legislation to some degree?
Should be thread-worthy.
Looks like it gets them out of following the legislation to some degree?
Should be thread-worthy.
i don't think they can get out of following the legislation with that otherwise wouldn't eula's be legally binding too?
So the thing just happened that I've laughed at other people for lots of times.
My baby got hold of the PlayStation 4 controller, I received an email thanking me for purchasing Watch Dogs Deluxe Edition, and Battlefield 4. I'm not interested in either game. I've pulled the lead out of the ps4, and there's no way either downloaded in the time that I noticed. £92! I was convinced I had the tick box checked that checked my password before purchases, I guess not.
Sony are refusing to give me a refund. What can I do?
So the thing just happened that I've laughed at other people for lots of times.
My baby got hold of the PlayStation 4 controller, I received an email thanking me for purchasing Watch Dogs Deluxe Edition, and Battlefield 4. I'm not interested in either game. I've pulled the lead out of the ps4, and there's no way either downloaded in the time that I noticed. £92! I was convinced I had the tick box checked that checked my password before purchases, I guess not.
Sony are refusing to give me a refund. What can I do?
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/buy-sell-online/rights-e-commerce/index_en.htm
According to this, once the download has started, it's over. But the law was clearly made with streaming in mind, and I would say is unfair for content that you can't use until the download is complete. Your best chance now is to cry over Sony's helpdesk, or try to get a judge to agree with us.
Can terms of usage supersede European rights?
Can terms of usage supersede European rights?
Yeah, one of them is 33GB, and the other is 20GB. There's no way the first finished if they did start downloading (I'm going to turn off the router and plug the PS4 back in when I'm home to check). I'm on standard ADSL, and it was unplugged minutes after getting the email.
Sony won't do anything. I had something similar happen (though rather than a child it was a hacker or someone who gained unauthorised access to my PSN account) and Sony told me they won't do anything about it and they aren't obligated to refund me or investigate it. Only way is to file a charge back with your bank which will get you the money back but leave your PSN account banned (you can make another one though).
There are a number of Sony MVPs on here, ask one or more of them to elevate your complaint?
That might get some results.
Wow, I wouldn't know who to approach. If that's something that could happen though I would be incredibly grateful
Can depend a bit from rule to rule. Some articles of legislation and rules can be contracted around, others can not. In the area of consumer protection though, most of the EU law (and national equivalent) cannot be damaged or lessened by contract.