dishonest merchant

[mortor]

I live in NY.
A year ago purchased a service that i used for few months and after that i forgot about it, then few days ago my CC got charged for another year. Now they say I cant get my money back because of their Eula (I believe that company is located in IL).
Here is a portion of it:

*** CANCELLATIONS ***
Please note, DarkStar Communications requires a 1 day notice on all cancellations, this means if you cancel and your service is due in 1 day or less you will still be held liable for the next cycle of service. Please make sure you submit your cancellation request by opening a trouble ticket in the cancellations department. It will be your responsibility to ensure that you make sure we have been successfully notified of your request to cancel service.

Just wanna add that they didn't inform me about upcoming service charge until they already have processed the payment. So I didn't have a chance to react.

My question is: is such a practice legal? If I buy a pair of shoes I have the right to return it and get my money back correct? Why should this be different?

Thank you!

 

[racer72]

is such a practice legal?

Sure it is. You agreeed to it when you signed up.

If I buy a pair of shoes I have the right to return it and get my money back correct?

Not necessarily. It depends on the store policy. If the product is defective, you may have the right to obtain a replacement. You have not stated if the product you purchased is defective.

Why should this be different?

You comparing apples and oranges. An online subscription service is nothing like buying a pair of shoes from a store.

 

[mortor]

Ah, that's too bad I guess.
On the other hand are companies allowed to put anything in their "Eula"?
Shouldn't the law regulate it somehow?
You said apples and oranges, ok but a purchase is a purchase, why does it matter what kind? It wouldn't cost them anything to reimburse the money.

Lets say they add following text to their Eula:

...and we owe your house and car when you click accept.

What happens then?

 

[VeronicaLodge]

you better not click accept

 

[mike_lee]

You could challenge in court and probably win but are you going to spend 10 grand to save $29.95? Sometimes capitalism sucks but business often have more have robust rights then people do.


------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard a credit card company use a term like "Purchase protection?" You think that protects you against unscrupulous businesses but here's what they don't tell you. It's the Merchant who has the final say! The credit card company could deny them services but they wont and there's nothing you can do about it.

I bought a $3000.00 PC from ABS computers (which is owned by same family that owns Newegg) I knew they are Chinese so I don't expect refund but Chinese are usually very responsive with exchanges. I ended up buying. at my expense, a new motherboard and processor from of all places, I realized too late, . . .Newegg! Doh!

 

[ariastar]

You said apples and oranges, ok but a purchase is a purchase, why does it matter what kind?

What if you got all the use you needed out of that service in one day? No store is required to give you a refund unless the product is defective (well, okay, there is a law that allows for the return of cars sometimes). Doing so is a courtesy.

It wouldn't cost them anything to reimburse the money.

It would cost them the money they are giving you.

If you want to be a jerk, you can go bitch to your credit card company that you didn't cancel in time and so feel they wronged you by not reading your mind and now won't give you their money back.

 

[Zigner]

If you want to be a jerk, you can go bitch to your credit card company that you didn't cancel in time and so feel they wronged you by not reading your mind and now won't give you their money back.

Sure he could...and then he could get a temporary credit that will be removed from his account after the CC determines that the charge was legitimate and authorized

 

[CMLANDLORD]

The merchant decides what their return policy is. Some retailers say "NO REFUND, NO EXCHANGES" some let you return everything under the sun. Its their store, its their policy. You have the final say in purchasing or not purchasing from them

Before you signed up for the service, there had to have been something in fine print that advised you of this. Most people choose not to read the fine print and sign their lives away.

If you've made every attempt to try and ask for a refund and they're not budging, then you're stuck. Enjoy the service for 1 more year and make sure you cancel 1 day before your new term ends.

 

[Zigner]

And, just to be clear. The title of your thread is wrong. It should be "Uninformed Consumer"

 

[VeronicaLodge]

yeah i agree, i dont see anything that the merchant did that was dishonest.

 

[mike_lee]

Dishonest yes, illegal no. This is exactly how many porn sites operate and why they had to band together to protect themselves from chargebacks. If you chargeback against a porn site you will never be able to join another porn site (porn is free anyway) they bury the auto renew clause in the fine print and charge you before you have any option to cancel. Often you will cancel but they will claim to have no record. Sometimes it takes months to get out of a server auto renew system like AITNET.COM or GODADDY.COM They require a written letter to opt out but not to opt in

 

[VeronicaLodge]

how is an auto renewal clause that is disclosed to you dishonest?

 

[mike_lee]

how is an auto renewal clause that is disclosed to you dishonest?

Because the word dishonest is a values based word.

Why do they use fine print? Because they don't want you to know something but are required by law to tell you. is hiding it in pages and pages of legal mumbo jumbo in a tiny font honest?

 

[Zigner]

Because the word dishonest is a values based word.

Not on a legal forum it's not. If it were NOT disclosed, then it's dishonest. If were specifically stated as NOT auto renewing, then it's dishonest.

 

[mike_lee]

Well here is a little piece we can both use to prove our opposing views, which makes my point. I realize it's english law but it's an English word.



English law

Dishonesty in law is more complex and has been subject to a number of incomplete and unsatisfactory definitions. This is because such are the variety of circumstances in which dishonesty may occur that creating an over-arching definition is virtually impossible.

For many years, there were two views in English law. The first contention was that the definitions of dishonesty (such as those within the Theft Act 1968) described a course of action, whereas the second contention was that the definition described a state of mind. A clear test emerged from R v. Ghosh (1982) 75 CR App. R. 154. The Court of Appeal held that dishonesty is an element of mens rea, clearly referring to a state of mind, and that overall, the test that must be applied is hybrid, but with a subjective bias which "looks into the mind" of the person concerned and establishes what he was thinking. The test is two-stage:

* "Were the person's actions honest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?" If a jury decides that they were, then the defendant's claim to be honest will be credible. But, if the court decides that the actions were dishonest, the further question is:
* "Did the person concerned believe that what he did was dishonest at the time?"

The decision of whether a particular action or set of actions is dishonest remains separate from the issue of moral justification. For example, when Robin Hood robbed the Sheriff of Nottingham he knew that he was, in effect, stealing from the Crown, was acting dishonestly and would have been properly convicted of robbery. His argument would have been that he was morally justified in acting in this way but in modern legal terms this could only have been brought to the court by way of mitigation of sentencing and would not have affected the inference of dishonesty.