You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the good. So like, if they sell you a hammer and it's actually made of glass, or the head falls off after the first hit - both of those would carry an implied warranty from the merchant and you would get your money back (in small-claims court, if necessary).

The US is one such jurisdiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merchant...

IANAL, but the plain text is pretty obvious. Are you a lawyer, or can you explain how merchantability wouldn't apply?

> "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to"

These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA, because plenty of people successfully make films with RED cameras.

To be a bit brusque - the law is technical, but it's also written by humans and interpreted by humans, and programmers who spend all day working on computers and broadly trend towards the autistic side always try to come up with clever end-runs around the law that will never actually work in reality. See also: every time securities law or KYC/AML is brought up in crypto threads. Your "clever exploit" of the law is not going to work, and is going to land you in jail.

If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused. It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be completely unamused by it.

If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it back, most retailers have return policies and most of them will stretch them even further to keep the business of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person would expect a hammer to work. One person being an unreasonable person doesn't really change that.

If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge is gonna slap them down.

I think it's a pretty long haul claiming that something isn't fit for purpose because you don't like an EULA that's available on the website prior to purchase

That's not a claim I made in my comment.

OP said "you're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to" and that's false, if it's sold as a hammer it needs to serve the ordinary purpose of a hammer, and that is covered by law in most jurisdictions (US/EU at the minimum).

Whether you could argue that a post-sale EULA (or EULA change) that renders the device inoperable for its ordinary purpose invokes merchantability is an interesting argument though, and that really gets back to "how much money do you have for lawyers", "how much are they willing to try and test their EULA's validity", etc. Tractors are probably an interesting example there (don't remember if it's been brought up here or not).

I think the big problem there is that merchantability is a claim against the merchant, and while you'd probably get your money back if you disagreed with the EULA a week after the sale, what happens if John Deere pushes an update a year after you buy the tractor and it's de-facto bricked at that point if you don't agree? The situation with software makes the whole thing so much more complicated, and the law is different there around ownership in general (you don't own the software, you have a license to use the software, but the tractor doesn't work without the software either).

It's shitty and the "ownership" situation with software really needs significant reform (that will never happen in the US). Ownership of a software license needs to be brought closer to ownership of a physical good, but that will break the business models of a lot of companies who will lobby to make sure that never happens.

That's absurd. If you buy something in a store you may never have visited the website of the manufacturer. It's not fit for purpose if you need to agree to a new contract, the terms of which were not disclosed to you before you made the purchase, before you can use it for its intended purpose.

The courts have repeatedly held that being past that point in an installer is evidence of consent, so take it up with them, I guess

He's not past that point; he hasn't accepted the new terms yet. Did you read the OP?

You're missing the point

He can return it, or he can consent

Nothing here is illegal. This structure is common, even though you guys are saying "that's absurd"

Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law

I never said anything is illegal. All I have done is point out why he has a legal right to return it, as not fit for purpose. Apparently we agree, since you said "he can return it, or he can consent".

> Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in international law that is even remotely related to these issues. Consumer rights and sales contracts are national (and in many countries even sub-national, e.g. state) issues.

If you're going to make strong assertions and tell people they're "missing the point" it might be a good idea to a) properly read & comprehend the comments you're replying to, and b) actually know what you are talking about.

I'm sorry that you feel that you can enter a conversation, deny it, then reject the existing context of the conversation as something you didn't say.

You cannot.

Good day

.

> it might be a good idea to a) properly read

I'd say the same to you, frankly.

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

Yes you are. If it’s not fit for the purpose you’re entitled to return it.

"Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as "fit for purpose". The purpose of a hammer is (mostly) an objective fact. Your expectations of what the hammer can do, on the other hand, may or may not be reasonable.

(Though in this case I think it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the camera is not fit for purpose if the EULA terms were not clearly disclosed before the purchase was made.)

> "Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as "fit for purpose"

For the purposes of that comment, I meant them to be equivalent ...under the presumption that a typical person knows what a hammer does. (I was avoiding the legalese)

Yeah. But I guess the distinction is quite relevant with things more complex than a hammer.

For example, you are not legally entitled to return a camera because you thought it could shoot in 3D and it couldn't, unless the advertising falsely claimed that. The seller might accept a return, but they're not obliged to.

The EULA thing is sort of on the edge of that. Many (most?) devices come with EULAs these days. So you could make an argument that the buyer can't reasonably expect there to not be additional terms that they must accept before using it. I don't really find that argument very compelling, though, if the terms are not available to the buyer at the point of sale.

If the hammer could not drive nails, you would be entitled to a refund.

If a camera refuses to take pictures, why would you not be entitled to a refund?