Activations of a product purchased from the marketplace were taken away - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
All complaints to the seller - tear him apart with a review of his product. We are not discussing it with you anymore! A resource guaranteed five activations saved - he should not have claims. And he punished the buyer, the seller, promised 10 activations, and gave 5. What else is unclear. If not the rules of the resource - so he could even give one))))).
In my opinion, in this case the seller has not acted in good faith. That is, he has not formally violated anything, but he has not acted in good faith towards the buyer.
The idea is that "the law is not retroactive" - the change in licensing terms should apply only to newly purchased products.
But, on the other hand - again, let me remind you, every DC in the Offert has a clause that allows it to change the terms as it pleases, in theory a DC can introduce a clause "invested funds are not returned to the client" and on this basis take away from users all their deposits. It would be difficult to prove that he did this illegally - after all, everything is strictly according to the Offerta, to which traders-customers have agreed.
So - in my opinion, we should just write a negative review here and be done with it. "Searching for the truth" is useless, because in this case both will be right.
Can a resource influence the seller in this situation?
I think not, if the seller(s) are reading us - they need to think about their reputation. There are a lot of sellers, they will be poor if they cheat.
Actually, "returning a wrong item to a shop" is defined in the Consumer Protection Act -- and in your example, the seller accepting a return is forced to do so by law, not out of "goodwill".
And when a buyer purchases a product, they are relying on the seller to comply with that law if anything happens.
And compliance with this law is not "goodwill" towards customers, but an obligation under the law.
And the buyer's desire to return the product within the terms and requirements of the law -- cannot be considered an abuse and here the ability to return -- that is the "return was a condition of purchase" regime
You can explain "can't be considered abuse" to the retailers - they will tell you the harsh reality.
Lots of businesses(including the return cited) live with goodwill. You just don't see it, taking these manifestations as an obligation.
Laws in private cases are a method of balancing and protecting both sides to avoid distortion. In our case it is the 5 minimum activation rule.
Offtopic, sorry. Do you really believe that everyone who became Rich was Honest??? And all the Beggars cheated someone??? )))))
and where is the vendor's offer that the vendor offers and the buyer agrees to.
any transaction must have documents
who is the selling party the seller or the service?
the rules are the rules but there was no deal, no paperwork )
buyer, did you sign anything at the time of purchase?
where is the seller's offer, which is offered by the seller and to which the buyer agrees.
any transaction must be documented
Who is the selling party - the seller or the service?
A purchase means agreement to a public offer in the form of the rules of the Market service: https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/rules
Information about this is shown at the payment stage.
Purchase signifies acceptance of the public offer in the form of Market service rules: https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/rules
Information about this is shown at the payment stage.
see recently i bought kaspersky there are 2-3 activations (maybe there are more)
chose 3, bought 3, put 3, "what's on the box is what's inside"
Here I buy 10 (on the showcase it is so), tucked 4 (the rules for the most part rarely read).
ZS: this should somehow be adjusted