Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Jeef690, Sep 14, 2007.
So who got both?
I got $210 refunded on Amex and I got my $100 today from apple. Went in to the Clearndon VA store and purchased .Mac account
Could you explain how you got Amex to refund. I wasnt able to make them bend.
The morality and ethics police will swoop down on this thread to hand out verbal lashings momentarily.
Guys, I can't believe you would do that. Not cool, not cool.
I'm all for taking advantage of good deals but this is outrageous.
I hope you guys sleep well tonight knowing what you did.
Oh wait, you don't care...
There was no push back, I called on the first days after the annoucment.
It's their money, its not like they are taking money away from apple or amex. Apple still gets to record any purchases through the rebate as revenue. Amex offers the price protection program because it can handle it.
I'm gonna sleep just fine...thanks
Besides, why shouldn't I? I abided by both companies' policies. My CC company offered me price protection, Apple offered me a rebate. Neither is taking money from the other...so I don't see the problem.
No, you didn't. The terms were:
Just because Apple wasn't able to create a bulletproof system to approve refunds doesn't mean that your legal eligibility changes. It is fraudulent to make a claim to which you are not entitled. Further, it is a blatant violation of ethics to claim that someone should have to prevent you from exceeding your rights and entitlements.
There is no rationalization that changes that simple fact. The terms aren't pages of contract language. It's a couple paragraphs. You have actively taken advantage of a loophole in an automated system, and you are legally liable for the consequences if either party sees fit to pursue them.
People who cried murder about being ripped off are taking the good will offered (which Apple had no obligation to provide) and ripping off the parties and services designed to protect them. Abuse of services like these is what makes them go away.
It's not about morality. It's about ethics and economics. If that's the system society is comfortable with, that's fine, but complaining about corporate greed is no longer an option.
Thats reffering to reciving a rebate, or other consideration from APPLE. Apple can't control what AMEX can and cannot do.
No, that's not the way it works. You have a choice when presented with this scenario: you can seek a price adjustment, which completely exhausts any harm suffered. Alternatively, if that option is not available to you, you can seek redress through Apple's program, which is for iPhone customers who paid the full, old price for the product. If you have received a price adjustment, you're no longer in the category that makes you eligible for the rebate. There's no tacking once the harm is resolved.
That depends on the nature of AMEX's price protection plan. If American Express pays the cardholder for the adjustment from its own funds, then you are correct. If, however, it functions as a dispute where American Express seeks remuneration from Apple, then Apple does have an interest and therefore a voice in what American Express does.
More to the point, however, it's not about controlling what other parties do. It's about violation of good faith in transactions. The customer has multiple options to seek redress, but no right, legal or otherwise, to take for himself more than the harm he suffered. That's what we call unjust enrichment.
Get over it dude
I bet you're a saint and never sinned or did anything bad in your life.
If they can legally take advantage of credit card protection and apple rebates what is wrong with that.
We pay lots of money to credit card companys thru interest every year, so I dont think they or Apple would go bankrupt cause of this.
Some of you people amaze me. Sleep well at night, like he did something that bad
And you care because of?
I cant believe people would waste so much time and energy to something like this? Its his business dude, you can sit there and hate as much as you want it wont make a difference. Go back to your perfect life.....
Let me clarify. The reason I made this thread was to see if Apple stood by their original claim that they would not offer refunds to those who already had them. They obviously didnt hold up to it. I think it is only in all fairness that myself, a long time Amex customer, should be treated the same as the second poster.
First, it's not legal. It's unjust enrichment.
Second, even if it were legal, it's pretty clearly unjustifiable. What makes you entitled to profit for nothing? Once you have been compensated and given the best possible price, what factual basis can you claim for seeking free money?
I don't particularly care, except to highlight the extreme hypocrisy. Crying bloody murder about being ripped off (when no such event occurred) and then ripping off the very people who are seeking to protect your consumer interests is wrong. It has the net effect of eradicating good faith and advancing the widespread shutdown of these services due to abuse. As a participant in the market, I have an interest in consumer protections. Acts such as these undermine those protections. I can afford to live without them, but prefer they remain intact for the good of society.
More accurately, they haven't yet. There's no guarantee they won't take action against abuse. There's no evidence that they will, either. But in the interest of full disclosure, they certainly can (American Express, Apple, AT&T, and any other involved party).
Apple's rules about gifts or rebates only apply to considerations given by Apple. Apple has no control over other companies' policies.
There are three different parties here: Apple, AT&T, and AMEX. Apple offered a $100 coupon to certain iPhone purchasers, which wound up covering most people who bought their iPhone at the original retail price.
Amex offers a price protection program, where if the price of an item goes down, Amex will refund the difference. Whether Amex recovers money from the original vendor will depend on the contract in effect between Amex and the appropriate retailer. There is no law in effect that would prohibit someone from using both. You are incorrect when you assert "That's not the way it works." People who were able to be price protected and who were eligible for the coupon are, legally, complying with both sets of requirements and are therefore entitled to both. In fact, purchasers who were already price protected by Apple or AT&T are specifically excluded.
Ethically, there is similarly no bar to recovering both. In fact, it is simply common sense to avail yourself of both if you can while complying with the policies established for each.
Finally, if someone is eligible for both Amex price protection and Apple's coupon, there is no "profit" for them. They are simply availing themself of a previously bargained-for benefit.
Well I had to try. I was already given a full refund for both of my iphone purchases, so I was ahead. But when it was up today at apple.com, my curiosity (and want of 200) made me try it. I did, nothing happened. Said I had already received a credit or consideration (something like that, couldn't remember).
Good job people who got the credit card and apples gift certificate. Both companies are willing to do it, so why not take adavantage of it.
I bet if you could you'd also do the same in a heart beat. And me and mostly everyone here.
Sitting there and pointing fingers like the bro commited a major crime or something is rediculous.
And you really think these companys really care or they'd waste their time chasing people around and trying to find out if they got money from some credit card company or you think its even worth their time or money over $100?
Life is unjust, this is nothing compared to whats really unjust out there in life.
Hope you dont go and report him to Apple
Matticus is just pissed cause this guy got double credit and he didnt
cry me a river
Yes, and Apple is free to place restrictions on that consideration based on any grounds they feel are appropriate. Apple is free to say "you've already gotten a price adjustment from American Express and are therefore ineligible." There's the small matter of law (they can place any terms on fulfillment not barred by the law). Apple's rules can and do require eligible customers to have paid the full price and not received other consideration (at all). If you have received a price adjustment already, you are not out the [$499/599+tax] required to be eligible for the Apple rebate. You brought American Express into the transaction as your agent when you selected them to make the purchase on your behalf.
If American Express credited your account, then you only paid $299/399 for the iPhone and are ineligible. Your payment arrangements with your creditor--you didn't hand over $600 and then go ask for $200 back, since a price adjustment is by definition applied retroactively to the date of purchase for all matters of law.
It is a breach of terms of the Apple credit to seek it after having already received compensation. Those terms are legally valid and enforceable. In order for that not to be true, there would need to be a law in effect to do so--you've got it backwards. Apple's terms are legal and binding unless specifically enjoined.
No, they're not. The terms provide for who's eligible. People who have received any other consideration or price adjustment are not eligible.
Yes, there is. The only harm in this case is that you paid $200 more than you could have, had you waited. Ignoring the issue of TVM (as a courtesy to you), any scenario which results in you profiting beyond that $200 reimbursement is ethically unjustifiable. You did nothing to deserve an extra $100.
Edit: For the record, I have sought no credit from any party.
SO, let me get this straight-
It was unfair and you cried when Apple dropped the price of the phone you have used for two months... because you felt Apple ripped you off for 200 clams...
but it's OK for you to double dip and take 100 FAIR dollars from Apple, and the 2 more Bills from AMEX (which comes directly out of AMEX's pocket, and who was not an active participant in the original transaction at all)
Dude, you have a REAL problem with morals.
So, now that YOU have double dipped, do you still think Apples reprice is unfair, too?
Actually, no. If Apple were to deny someone the coupon based on their having been price protected by Amex, they would be open to suit based on their interfering with the contractual relationship between Amex and the cardholder.
Second, Apple has done no such thing, most likely in recognition of the statement above.
Besides, there is no agency involved here--Amex is not the purchaser's "agent" as that term is defined in agency law. Amex is simply a contracted third party payer. Also, Apple nowhere mentions the price--the terms simply state that the rebate is offered to end customers who purchased an iPhone prior to August 22. This makes the specific price paid irrelevant--if someone had paid $1 they would still be eligible for the rebate.
If you read the terms and conditions, Apple excludes "(3) iPhones for which a Gift Card, rebate, or other consideration have already been issued. . ." This is specifically referring to any other consideration issued by APPLE. Apple cannot interfere with pre-existing contractual relationships between Amex and Amex cardholders, which is precisely what Apple would be doing if they tried to restrict the rebate from Amex holders who were price-protected by Amex.
Also, as I noted earlier, nowhere in the terms and conditions does Apple state that any particular price must have been paid to be eligible for the rebate.
Patently false. Apple did not interfere with the American Express price adjustment and has no liability. The customer is not limited in his action to recover his "loss." Apple is free to require, and has required, that customers have given consideration in the amount of $499/599 plus tax to be eligible for the Apple credit. Because the customer did not pay the full price (they have received a price adjustment, a condition which specifically precludes them from eligibility under the terms), they are ineligible. The customer is responsible only for paying the "low" price, has resolved his cause of action, and has no legitimate claim to the additional $100. To take two alternative remunerations for a single harm is unjust enrichment and breach of contract (failing to exercise good faith in performance).
I am using the term colloquially. If you want to be pedantic, there is no such thing as agency law. There's the matter of agency in commercial law. Even still, what you claim is not entirely true. See UCC Article 4.
The price is implicit in the date of sale, since the vendor and the date correspond to a single price. Without this metonymy, seminal cases such as Raffles v. Wichelhaus couldn't have occurred.
The American Express price adjustment is tantamount to placing a stop payment on a check and issuing a new check for the current, "low" price. Seeking the credit made available to those who have fully surrendered $600+ to Apple oversteps the harm and demonstrates bad faith in performance.
Based on what language in the terms and conditions? (It doesn't say "consideration from Apple.") Or based on what standing in the common law? Or based on what statute?
You are seeking to limit rights in the exercise of a contract and thus as the affirmative have the burden of proof in demonstrating what authority limits those rights.