No, you showed a link that we couldn't do anything about it due to it falling under US law. Which is correct.
False advertising is taken very seriously over here.
I also showed you that it wasn't false advertisement. Yes I know that the EU takes a dim view of false advertisement. I showed you how it wasn't false.
To be honest, and in the interest of full disclosure. I really don't like the EU laws. They are way too draconian especially the labor laws.
No, you showed a link that we couldn't do anything about it due to it falling under US law. Which is correct.
False advertising is taken very seriously over here.
That would require false advertising, which no one has been able to prove at this juncture. We have only hearsay from a few people who insist they were told the items would never be in the C-store.
I also showed you that it wasn't false advertisement. Yes I know that the EU takes a dim view of false advertisement. I showed you how it wasn't false.
To be honest, and in the interest of full disclosure. I really don't like the EU laws. They are way too draconian especially the labor laws.
No, you showed us its wasn't false advertising by your interpriation.
That would require false advertising, which no one has been able to prove at this juncture. We have only hearsay from a few people who insist they were told the items would never be in the C-store.
Exactly, that is why we can't do anything about it. While we know exactly what we were told, the information to back it up to a level that would be required no longer exists.
Can we now please change back to the topic? As evertime a certain person gets involved, this gets swung into a legal discussion. It isn't.
Exactly, we is why we can't do anything about it. While we know exactly what we were told, the information to back it up to a level that would be required no longer exists.
Can we now please change back to the topic? As evertime a certain person gets involved, this gets swung into a legal discussion. It isn't.
You could have said my name. I wouldn't have been offended.
I've have no idea what you intentions are, but please don't use my name in vain.
The discussion in the other thread around legality was started by another person. I was party to the conversation. Not once did I suggest anyone is entitled to legal action over this, nor that I would be seeking any. It wouldn't succeed.
By EU law this move at least for he MU uniforms is illegal, by US law its apparently not. We can complain, but were can't take action due to the country of sale.
So I can't say, "Oh My Dryan!"?
Seriously though, I was party to that conversation myself since I felt that any legal action was ill-advised. It's good to see that you finally understand this.
Exactly, we is why we can't do anything about it. While we know exactly what we were told, the information to back it up to a level that would be required no longer exists.
Can we now please change back to the topic? As evertime a certain person gets involved, this gets swung into a legal discussion. It isn't.
But the legal and the topic are intertwined. So many of you have said "never" and everything we have seen indicates otherwise. That's why, while we don't doubt your sincerity, we're disinclined to believe your statement. Because ultimately, it sounds like you were told it wasn't being sold anywhere else (which was true at the time) and nobody put a temporal component on it.
That would not be false advertisement, nor even particularly misleading.
Seriously though, I was party to that conversation myself since I felt that any legal action was ill-advised. It's good to see that you finally understand this.
Yes, there were parts of that conversation where I was wrong. Other bits where I wasn't. Swings and round abouts.
I didn't however ever state legal action would be wise or even sensible.
This is simply about being told one thing and them not upholding it.
Comments
No, you showed a link that we couldn't do anything about it due to it falling under US law. Which is correct.
False advertising is taken very seriously over here.
I also showed you that it wasn't false advertisement. Yes I know that the EU takes a dim view of false advertisement. I showed you how it wasn't false.
To be honest, and in the interest of full disclosure. I really don't like the EU laws. They are way too draconian especially the labor laws.
That would require false advertising, which no one has been able to prove at this juncture. We have only hearsay from a few people who insist they were told the items would never be in the C-store.
No, you showed us its wasn't false advertising by your interpriation.
I showed you the marketing use and interpretation. How it is used in marketing etc.
Now you are just being stubborn.
Exactly, that is why we can't do anything about it. While we know exactly what we were told, the information to back it up to a level that would be required no longer exists.
Can we now please change back to the topic? As evertime a certain person gets involved, this gets swung into a legal discussion. It isn't.
You could have said my name. I wouldn't have been offended.
So I can't say, "Oh My Dryan!"?
Seriously though, I was party to that conversation myself since I felt that any legal action was ill-advised. It's good to see that you finally understand this.
Thats not fair I want a sprinkled one too with creamy center
Look, you showed isolated sections under your own interpretation. You do not live in the EU, you are making assumptions.
But the legal and the topic are intertwined. So many of you have said "never" and everything we have seen indicates otherwise. That's why, while we don't doubt your sincerity, we're disinclined to believe your statement. Because ultimately, it sounds like you were told it wasn't being sold anywhere else (which was true at the time) and nobody put a temporal component on it.
That would not be false advertisement, nor even particularly misleading.
I don't have to live in the EU to be familiar with EU commerce laws.
Yes, there were parts of that conversation where I was wrong. Other bits where I wasn't. Swings and round abouts.
I didn't however ever state legal action would be wise or even sensible.
This is simply about being told one thing and them not upholding it.
What does that have to do with your name in vain?