Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkatraz
Are you serious???
I find it hard to believe that in the US there are zero laws which govern trade practises. In Aus we have the 'trade practises act' and 'consumer protection act'. There are probably others but they are the two that come to mind.
In a country that requires a jar of peanuts to have a 'Warning! May contain traces of nuts' label on the side, i highly doubt that there are no laws governing layaway practises at all.
In fact, 30 seconds on google has just shown me that California has very specific laws when it comes to layaway.......the defence rests.
|
There is a reason that act is vague. It is vague so the person writing the contract can put the details in. Like I said before if the terms are not defined in the contract the customer still wins. Case would still be dealt with in civil court. It will not be "u.s. vs GTM" if it is "u.s. vs GTM" then you know the government cares.
This stuff really is too small for them to care about it.
In the end it still goes back to what I have been saying. 51% in civil court wins. Ambiguity in a contract favors the customer.
A real good contract will define all terms to its exact detail. I have yet to see the actual contract so I will still say that the people still deserve a refund.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4