HP refund on pre-installed Windows
in [UK Linux]
|
From: Folderol on 18 Nov 2009 13:20 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:39:32 +0100 Martin <me(a)address.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:50:22 +0000, Tony van der Hoff > <tony(a)nospam.vanderhoff.org> wrote: > > >chris wrote: > >> Folderol wrote: > >>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:08 +0000 > >>> no-one <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Bought a netbook and considered going for a refund on the Windows and > >>>> installing Linux. Noticed on startup that HP's terms and conditions > >>>> are now that if you do not agree to the MS and HP EULAs, the only > >>>> refund option is to return the ENTIRE package including the hardware. > >>>> > >>>> Neat fit up. > >>> > >>> Hmmm. I wonder if that is in fact legal. > >> > >> My thought exactly. > >> > >>> Be nice to have the time (and money) to find out. > >> > >> A quick punt to trading standards could give a quick and cheap idea. > > > >IANAL, but I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. The goods were > >purchased as a package. Provided they're prepared to give a full refund > >on the package, they've met their obligations. > > If they offered a refund on Windows, then they can't change that part of the > conditions. > > If everybody was to ask for a full refund, then ... The issue is further complicated by the fact that they are not selling you a single product. They are selling hardware and *inviting* you to accept a *license* on the software. If the computer could not work without that precise software they might just scrape through with a case, but this is not the situation. Also, they have no authority to change the terms of Microsoft's license, which clearly states that if you do not accept the terms you should return it to the vendor for refund. Nowhere in their terms is there a linkage to any hardware, so how are HP authorised to make such a link? I can't think of any comparable product where you buy one part but rent the other. An added point in the buyers favour is that if HP will not supply the hardware without the software they are effectively employing a restrictive trade practice. This is rather a hot topic these days, and I think you were to put it to them that way, they'd want to quietly come to an arrangement in your 'special' case. -- Will J G
From: Mark Hobley on 20 Nov 2009 13:08 Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote: > Hmmm. I wonder if that is in fact legal. This is product tying, which is considered to be an anti-competitive practice within the European Union. I don't know how you go about filing a complaint against them though. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
From: Big and Blue on 20 Nov 2009 13:25 Mark Hobley wrote: > Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote: >> Hmmm. I wonder if that is in fact legal. > > This is product tying, which is considered to be an anti-competitive > practice within the European Union. I don't know how you go about filing a > complaint against them though. What about starting with the local trading standards office? -- Just because I've written it doesn't mean that either you or I have to believe it.
From: Mark Hobley on 20 Nov 2009 21:08
Big and Blue <No_4(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > What about starting with the local trading standards office? I would definitely follow that up. People often require a Hewlett Packard based machine, but not a Microsoft Windows based operating system. Hewlett Packard really needs to fall into line here. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |