 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Guten Tag, Rene! Hope fatherhood is treating you well:^D Thanks for bringing this into the discussion. It seems this information makes the case a little stronger against TLC. It's simply reckless and dishonest to advertise in this manner, IMO. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested all my money into it and now, 20+ years (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a case here (IMHO, IANAL). At the end of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: Grey zone debate wanted! (was: Lego in subdomains, legal or not?)
|
| Judging by the reactions (or lack of) to my suggestion to move the page to a subdomain called l3go, I guess it'll be ok... Or is it? Last chance to complain before I commence the moveingprocess. Cheers NB (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Hi John! (...) This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is." (Not only in respect of TLC but in respect of every public statement/promise/warranty/ect. these days, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
|
