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.