The LEGO Company : 2947


LEGO Company / 2947

Interesting point of view, Rene! —Christian Treczoks

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 (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past. 37 (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Mark de Kock

In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote: [snippage] (...) are saying is so "George Double-You" that it is almost too good :-) So either we complain about every single thing TLC does or we don't CARE? How about all the fans that are happy with this (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) I'm glad I could be of service. ;) But I'm afraid you're mixing up so many things I really don't wish to sort it out for you. And better never, ever mention George Doubble-You to "Old Europeans" like me ... (...) Try something stronger than (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) know he's doing a great job at being a liason. I care so much that I'm spending more now on LEGO products than I did before. I care to the point where I do shows and displays to show off what can be done with LEGO bricks to get otehr people (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) If they indeed said, "we will never produce this vehicle again" and they went ahead any way, you are okay with that??? Maybe this is a Liberal thing. It reminds me of a college professor who ran for a (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Ka-On Lee

(...) I got to 0 already because I keep getting this picture in my head: [comic book guy] Oh my gosh! The release will reduce the collectibility of my sets from 5 of 14000 to 5 of 2x000! I must go to the internet and complain! [/comic book guy] (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Christian Treczoks

(...) Wrong end of the line. Imagine what car (or other companies) go through when they promise something in their advertising, and don't keep it. E.g. if the any car company advertises a car to run 100km with 3 litres (The task of calculating the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Scott Lyttle

(...) I seem to recall General Motors making a promise that they were going to release the new Camaro by "x" date....well, turns out that they didn't make it. The result? An advertising campaign featuring the "human caring factor" of a manager who (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Eaton

(...) What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said "This MIGHT be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

(...) It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing their mind. (...) I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype which we all know to ignore. (...) Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Steve Bliss

(...) Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn't say claim anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if anything. (URL) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

(...) That's not how I took it. But look at the way it was explained to the Germans via their liason (thanks to Rene's post): (URL) Doesn't get more clear than that IMO. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) What is even more clear is that, at the time, TLC stated 'we have such-n-such quantity of Maersk Blue in stock and want to do something with it. Since, at htis time, we don't have a contract with Maersk for anything, we'll get rid of our stock (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Eaton

(...) Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read them as 100% definites. Let's look at Jake's post: (URL) As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a > (...) Interpretation: Fact. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Scott Lyttle

snippage (...) more snippage (...) John, I hate to be nitpicky here (oh, wait, half the posts on this thread are about being nitpicky), but I thought the color of set 10052 was yellow.. (URL) a different story... Scott (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)