Apple Care Revoked!!

[JamesGorman]

I actually had sympathy for you earlier, but I retract my conclusion ... "not that I'm trying to get more" & "the discount they are offering me isn't substantial" ... oxymoron, please be at least honest with yourself.

I hope Apple keeps their stance in $100 off, and if I were Apple and read this thread, I'd pull the $100 back as well.

Look I'm not really that upset anymore. Im just saying that there making it seem like their offering me me something amazing, and in reality, the rep was just informing me of something that I was already entitled too. I understand that mistakes are made. I work in retail. I jus think that they should be more upfront with their customers when a mistake is made.

 

[jenzjen]

Look I'm not really that upset anymore. Im just saying that there making it seem like their offering me me something amazing, and in reality, the rep was just informing me of something that I was already entitled too. I understand that mistakes are made. I work in retail. I jus think that they should be more upfront with their customers when a mistake is made.

Let's turn it around, what would you like them to do?

 

[xlii]

I was under the impression that applecare moved with the machine. If I buy a machine from apple + buy applecare... then I decide to sell the machine to someone else... the applecare moves with the machine to the new owner. Here that sounds like not the case?

 

[iLog.Genius]

I was under the impression that applecare moved with the machine. If I buy a machine from apple + buy applecare... then I decide to sell the machine to someone else... the applecare moves with the machine to the new owner. Here that sounds like not the case?

No because this was NOT a second hand computer. OP purchased the computer BNIB. Most of us believe that whoever the AppleCare really belonged to, incorrectly typed in the wrong serial number and just now go it correctly applied to their computer. There should be no AppleCare attached to OP's computer.

 

[ZebOfMac]

I just got done reading the entire thread.
The OP never bought the Applecare.
Someone put the Applecare on the wrong computer.

What I would be upset about is the fact that Apple did not contact the OP when they discovered the mistake. It would have been morally right to contact the two owners and explain what happened so that the OP could be offered to purchase Applecare. However they did not contact the OP and should be held accountable.

 

[jenzjen]

I just got done reading the entire thread.
The OP never bought the Applecare.
Someone put the Applecare on the wrong computer.

What I would be upset about is the fact that Apple did not contact the OP when they discovered the mistake. It would have been morally right to contact the two owners and explain what happened so that the OP could be offered to purchase Applecare. However they did not contact the OP and should be held accountable.

True, but if you want to play the moral / ethics card, you are missing a BIG point that renders this entire thread moot.

OP KNEW he received AC wrongly, so even when the Apple agent incorrectly said keep it, he should have said either (a) no thanks, take it off or (b) I'll buy my own right now. What happened to morals now?

 

[ZebOfMac]

If the OP told apple it had not purchased it and was then informed he could have the AppleCare, the discussion was in play and sometimes apple will give things away.

Myself have received extra items and when called to inform apple they came in the box, was informed I could keep the items at no charge. Of course this helped in my buying more products in the end.

Morals and ethics we will have a hard time checking as I doubt the OP recorded the phone call.

True, but if you want to play the moral / ethics card, you are missing a BIG point that renders this entire thread moot.

OP KNEW he received AC wrongly, so even when the Apple agent incorrectly said keep it, he should have said either (a) no thanks, take it off or (b) I'll buy my own right now. What happened to morals now?

 

[jenzjen]

Morals and ethics we will have a hard time checking as I doubt the OP recorded the phone call.

No recorded call necessary, he tells you all you need to know in the OP "found out that there was already 3 Years of Apple care on it. I called in, because I did not want to be left out in the cold later on."

He knew it wasn't rightfully his hence the call to Apple - that's why he's afraid he might be left in the cold later on if they find out so he was above board in telling them the situation.

What the agent does has no impact on the moral right. Ethically, you try to find the rightful owner and/or buy your own AC. That's all there is to it. Apple saying keep it does not change the argument, because Apple did not have the authority to give it to him.

Let's dumb it down - you find $10,000 in a cab, the cabbie says not mine you can keep it - is the $ rightfully yours? What the cabbie says does not change the ethics involved, because the cabbie lacks the authority to take something belonging to someone else and give it to you.

 

[torbjoern]

This case has obvious parallels to the mentality during the economic crisis. Somebody was lucky enough to get something they shouldn't have had in the first place - and when they cannot pay, they shout out loud for help. And when the counterpart agrees to meet somewhere in the middle (always two sides, remember), the former resents the solution.

Quite frankly, it reminds me even more of the Simpsons episode where Lisa can't pay her "MyBill".

 

[ancient]

What the agent does has no impact on the moral right. Ethically, you try to find the rightful owner and/or buy your own AC. That's all there is to it. Apple saying keep it does not change the argument, because Apple did not have the authority to give it to him.

Let's dumb it down - you find $10,000 in a cab, the cabbie says not mine you can keep it - is the $ rightfully yours? What the cabbie says does not change the ethics involved, because the cabbie lacks the authority to take something belonging to someone else and give it to you.

But Apple *do* have the legal and ethical right to give him a free Applecare - so long as they don't then deny it to the rightful purchaser. Apple create AppleCare, and so they have as much right to create extra "free" copies, as does Microsoft to give away free copies of Windows.

The cabbie argument is different: the money doesn't belong to the cabbie, and we don't allow cabbies to create extra money out of thin air (we leave that to central bankers). Hence the cabbie has no right to give away the money left in his cab, as it never belonged to him (it would be theft by taking).

Finally, at least in the UK, there is a long established principle that agents of a business (their employees and directors) have the right to bind the company by their actions - unless it is made known in advance that only certain people have that right. Obviously a degree of common sense is applied by courts (you wouldn't expect a court to uphold a shop worker agreeing to a multi-million pound takeover deal), but a CSR offering a "free" applecare might well be in the range of "reasonable" - especially if they normally have the ability to make other deals for customers.

In this case, personally, I'm not sure what would be fair: free applecare would be nice, but a reasonable discount would probably be an acceptable compromise.

 

[jenzjen]

But Apple *do* have the legal and ethical right to give him a free Applecare - so long as they don't then deny it to the rightful purchaser. Apple create AppleCare, and so they have as much right to create extra "free" copies, as does Microsoft to give away free copies of Windows.

The cabbie argument is different: the money doesn't belong to the cabbie, and we don't allow cabbies to create extra money out of thin air (we leave that to central bankers). Hence the cabbie has no right to give away the money left in his cab, as it never belonged to him (it would be theft by taking).

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Apple has the legal and ethical obligation to return him to where he was before the mistake, that's all. Everyone is forgetting that the OP knew he didn't buy AC so regardless of what the Apple agent told him, he was benefiting from someone's mistake. Unfortunately, the mistake got caught.

You are confusing what Apple CAN (give away free copies) with what they HAVE to do. Using your logic, if a BMW is lost in a garage, BMW corporate could call the garage and say give it to the person who found the car.

Maybe the laws in the UK are different. If OP were to escalate this to court in the US, he would have to (a) prove damages and (b) Apple would have to compensate him for said damages and return things to the state they were in before the mistake occurred.

We are here today. OP suffered no damages (he wrongly received a benefit) and is his original state now (without ANY compensation, free AC, etc from Apple), ie a working MacBook Pro eligible for AC.

Anything above $0 is Apple being generous. Legally and ethically, $0 is all Apple needs to do. The $100 he's been offered is just customer service ...

 

[ZilogZ80]

Finally, at least in the UK, there is a long established principle that agents of a business (their employees and directors) have the right to bind the company by their actions - unless it is made known in advance that only certain people have that right.

Utter rubbish.

 

[greytmom]

Wow. Is this still going on? At first, I was sympathetic, but now I'm more about "it's time to get over it."

 

[ancient]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Apple has the legal and ethical obligation to return him to where he was before the mistake, that's all. Everyone is forgetting that the OP knew he didn't buy AC so regardless of what the Apple agent told him, he was benefiting from someone's mistake. Unfortunately, the mistake got caught.
.

I think you are misreading what I wrote: I did not say they are ethically *obliged* to give a free applecare, I replied to the poster who wrote that they don't have the ethical or legal right to give him a free copy. I stand by the original statement: Apple can legally and ethically give free copies of anything to anyone, so long as they own it first. In the case of apple care, giving a free copy is simply creating an obligation for themselves, so unless the shareholders disagree, they can give away as many free copies as they want. What I did not say (or at least intend to say ) was that they MUST give away free copies.

You are confusing what Apple CAN (give away free copies) with what they HAVE to do. Using your logic, if a BMW is lost in a garage, BMW corporate could call the garage and say give it to the person who found the car.

With respect, I think you might be confused about what I wrote (because I think we are both arguing pretty much the same thing)

The BMW (presumably) doesn't belong to BMW. If however it was (say) a demo model owned by BMW and simply on show in the garage, then of course BMW has the right to give it to whoever they wish (in the absence of any contract (e.g. with the garage) that says otherwise)

Maybe the laws in the UK are different. If OP were to escalate this to court in the US, he would have to (a) prove damages and (b) Apple would have to compensate him for said damages and return things to the state they were in before the mistake occurred.

I would tend to agree in the UK too. Of course, for good "PR" apple might just decide to be nice $100 nice

 

[ancient]

Utter rubbish.

If that was the case, it would be impossible to purchase any products from a shop, except with the presence of a director authorised to sign each contract of sale.

The issue is what a reasonable person would expect a particular representative of the company is authorised to do. Expensive legal cases have hinged on this question. As I said, nobody would expect a shop worker to be authorised to sign a multi-million takeover deal: issuing a refund or discount or small "goodwill gesture" might well be considered reasonable for someone in such a position.

 

[jenzjen]

With respect, I think you might be confused about what I wrote (because I think we are both arguing pretty much the same thing)

Yes, agreed, by the way, look above, I'm the same poster. We're on the same page.

 

[ancient]

Yes, agreed, by the way, look above, I'm the same poster. We're on the same page.

Oops! Sorry about that confusion

 

[ZilogZ80]

If that was the case, it would be impossible to purchase any products from a shop, except with the presence of a director authorised to sign each contract of sale.

The issue is what a reasonable person would expect a particular representative of the company is authorised to do. Expensive legal cases have hinged on this question. As I said, nobody would expect a shop worker to be authorised to sign a multi-million takeover deal: issuing a refund or discount or small "goodwill gesture" might well be considered reasonable for someone in such a position.

I know nothing about you, but I can confidently state that you are:
a) not a lawyer/solicitor
b) not a UK business owner

I am (b) so I know that you are talking rubbish. I am under no obligation to honour any price or deal proposed by any of my employees. True, the reputation of the business may suffer, but any "refund/discount/goodwill gesture" is entirely at my discretion rather than as a legal obligation.

I have no idea why you are babbling about company directors authorising purchases or point-of-sale staff orchestrating mergers because this thread is about an alleged verbal agreement made over the telephone.

 

[Acorn]

Going on the assumption of what you said apple told you (maybe someone entered the wrong serial somehow) and you ended up with care. Im guessing whoever that person was called and cleared it up. forcing the revocation. not really apples fault.