Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Credit card rebate AND Apple Rebate?
- Thread starter Jeef690
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a easy way to find out who is right. Call up Apple and ask them if you already got a price adjustment from amex if it's still ok to apply for the rebate. If they say yes go ahead then they meant only if you had recieved consideration from apple or at&t you are not eligible. I bet they say no you have already gotten your consideration and even though you could get the rebate you are not eligible for it. Don't get me wrong I could care less whether the double dip or not but I bet Apple would say they are not eligible if you asked them before you applied for the rebate.
Edit: Oh just for the record I did not use amex for the purchase for I could not double dip. But if I could have I probably would have. Credit card companies screw me left and right I would'nt think twice about screwing them back.
Patently true. While I could refer you to a variety of cases, I'll spare everyone, since you can look them up just as well. If Apple were to attempt to exclude Amex cardholders who were price-protected, they would, in fact and in law, be interfering with the contractual agreement between Amex and cardholders. Also, how would they check? They could not without violating too many privacy laws to mention.
As I said, nowhere did Apple require any particular price be paid to be eligible. Nor could they, lest they run afoul of anti-trust law. Price cannot be implicit. The Amex, or any other credit card price adjustment, is not analogous to issuing, stopping, and reissuing a check. The Amex program does not involve the selling merchant at all--it is a purely internal Amex program. As such, it is utterly irrelevant.
Also, Apple's terms specifically exclude any phone that was price-protected by Apple or AT&T, thus INCLUDING any phone price-protected by any other entity.
Further, Apple, by its own explicit terms, has not required that a customer have purchased the phone for any particular price. Point to the price requirement in Apple's own, explicit terms and conditions and we can continue the discussion.
Finally, there is no "unjust enrichment" if an iPhone owner takes advantage of both. First, there is an explicit contract in place, which means unjust enrichment does not apply. When you write " To take two alternative remunerations for a single harm is unjust enrichment and breach of contract" you're demonstrating that you don't understand unjust enrichment--you cannot be unjustly enriched if you are acting in accordance with a contract, or, for that matter, two contracts, as is the case here.
Bob
As I said, nowhere did Apple require any particular price be paid to be eligible. Nor could they, lest they run afoul of anti-trust law. Price cannot be implicit. The Amex, or any other credit card price adjustment, is not analogous to issuing, stopping, and reissuing a check. The Amex program does not involve the selling merchant at all--it is a purely internal Amex program. As such, it is utterly irrelevant.
Also, Apple's terms specifically exclude any phone that was price-protected by Apple or AT&T, thus INCLUDING any phone price-protected by any other entity.
Further, Apple, by its own explicit terms, has not required that a customer have purchased the phone for any particular price. Point to the price requirement in Apple's own, explicit terms and conditions and we can continue the discussion.
Finally, there is no "unjust enrichment" if an iPhone owner takes advantage of both. First, there is an explicit contract in place, which means unjust enrichment does not apply. When you write " To take two alternative remunerations for a single harm is unjust enrichment and breach of contract" you're demonstrating that you don't understand unjust enrichment--you cannot be unjustly enriched if you are acting in accordance with a contract, or, for that matter, two contracts, as is the case here.
Bob
I think it would also vary depending on what customer support rep you spoke to.
Some could say sure, you can still get it and we cant/wont stop you.
While another might ask you for your iphones serial and since you told him you got credit thru your CC company might block your $100 rebate from Apple.
Some could say sure, you can still get it and we cant/wont stop you.
While another might ask you for your iphones serial and since you told him you got credit thru your CC company might block your $100 rebate from Apple.
That's like asking the wolf to guard the henhouse, don't you think?
In any event, it is none of Apple's business whether you were price protected by Amex or anyone else besides Apple or AT&T.
Bob
Well you could be right but I bet thier is some sort of policy on this. Do you really think Apple has not thought about his while they were putting together the rebate program this week. I think they would probably try to block you from getting the rebate if they found out from you that you got the refund from amex. No privacy laws broken thier if you tell them. Apple can't stop people from double dipping but that does not mean that if you do your eligible. It means you slipped through the crack. Still if you ask me no harm no foul.
I got $200 in Apple store credit per phone (bought one for me and one for my GF) mere minutes before Jobsy announced the rebate plan last week. I felt lucky, grateful even. But I still couldn't help but check if my serial number worked today at the rebate page. It didn't.
Is that sneaky? Maybe. Do I feel guilty for trying? No. Apple is a company. A big giant company. They can take an occasional hit. And for once, it's US doing the hitting.
Every month, big giant companies like Apple gouge the crap out of all of us without batting an eye. "Oh but Apple isn't like other big giant companies! Don't screw Apple out of a hundred bucks! That's immoral!"
What's immoral is that I paid a $200 ETF to T-Mobile last month. Does it really cost them anywhere near $200 to let me out of my contract? I spend more on cable/internet per month than on my cell phone bill...does Time Warner require a contract or charge a termination fee? Does my electric company? Does my land line carrier? No. Do I get as good if not better service from the above mentioned than any cell phone carrier? Yes.
Bank of America just upped their ATM fee to $3 for non-account holders. Other banks will no doubt follow suit. $3, per transaction, per customer, times hundreds of thousands of customers per day...the massive profit from which goes to executive dining rooms with full time chefs; to 10,000 sq. ft. oak panelled super-cooled penthouse boardrooms; to 6 figure bonuses (on top of 7 figure salaries).
Giant companies regularly make sweeping arbitrary decisions that benefit their bottom line, with no regard for their individual customers. And with their latest antics (price dropping, crippled ringtones, etc.) Apple is starting to exhibit signs of joining the ranks of the banks, the cell carriers, etc.
But once every 5 or 10 years, something like the Apple rebate comes along, where the tables are turned, ever so briefly, ever so slightly, and us regular folk get a chance to treat a big company like they treat us on a daily basis. It's like "Take A Consumer to Work Day".
If there end up being 5,000 iPhone owners who double dip with an Apple store credit on top of their $200 Amex rebate, I'd be surprised. That's a million bucks, plus the end cost of the $100 credit...probably $40 per person. Even if it's double that, it's still chump change to Amex or Apple.
I still maintain that Apple scripted this entire affair, and knew full well they'd achieve far more than the sum of their store credits in free advertising and perceived goodwill. Are we really supposed to practice morality in the shadow of a company that is capable of that?
Is that sneaky? Maybe. Do I feel guilty for trying? No. Apple is a company. A big giant company. They can take an occasional hit. And for once, it's US doing the hitting.
Every month, big giant companies like Apple gouge the crap out of all of us without batting an eye. "Oh but Apple isn't like other big giant companies! Don't screw Apple out of a hundred bucks! That's immoral!"
What's immoral is that I paid a $200 ETF to T-Mobile last month. Does it really cost them anywhere near $200 to let me out of my contract? I spend more on cable/internet per month than on my cell phone bill...does Time Warner require a contract or charge a termination fee? Does my electric company? Does my land line carrier? No. Do I get as good if not better service from the above mentioned than any cell phone carrier? Yes.
Bank of America just upped their ATM fee to $3 for non-account holders. Other banks will no doubt follow suit. $3, per transaction, per customer, times hundreds of thousands of customers per day...the massive profit from which goes to executive dining rooms with full time chefs; to 10,000 sq. ft. oak panelled super-cooled penthouse boardrooms; to 6 figure bonuses (on top of 7 figure salaries).
Giant companies regularly make sweeping arbitrary decisions that benefit their bottom line, with no regard for their individual customers. And with their latest antics (price dropping, crippled ringtones, etc.) Apple is starting to exhibit signs of joining the ranks of the banks, the cell carriers, etc.
But once every 5 or 10 years, something like the Apple rebate comes along, where the tables are turned, ever so briefly, ever so slightly, and us regular folk get a chance to treat a big company like they treat us on a daily basis. It's like "Take A Consumer to Work Day".
If there end up being 5,000 iPhone owners who double dip with an Apple store credit on top of their $200 Amex rebate, I'd be surprised. That's a million bucks, plus the end cost of the $100 credit...probably $40 per person. Even if it's double that, it's still chump change to Amex or Apple.
I still maintain that Apple scripted this entire affair, and knew full well they'd achieve far more than the sum of their store credits in free advertising and perceived goodwill. Are we really supposed to practice morality in the shadow of a company that is capable of that?
Name one. Surely you can cite at least one authority easily. Or at least you could, if any such cases existed.
They're not required to. The onus is on the customer to exercise good faith. This is the specific policy issue at hand--consumer bad faith is injurious to services designed to protect consumer interests, which are not intended (and no court would endorse) to exploit avenues of unjust enrichment.
Price must be unambiguous in a purchase agreement. Apple's pricing is unambiguous. The products sold for $499 or $599 respectively during the relevant period. That is not at issue. They required a particular time and a particular vendor. One one price is associated with that product and time. There can be no mistake of fact. This, as above, is incontrovertible.
No, it is not. The specific language covers a price adjustment, period. Where Apple must be the issuing party, it is specified in the terms (e.g. example 8). Elsewhere, it is a passive constraint referring to benefits conferred on the customer and NOT from the seller.
Right up until the next exception, where they are thrown out. You can't stop reading and pretend you're finished with the exclusions.
"This credit is extended to end-customers who own a qualifying iPhone purchased from Apple or AT&T prior to August 22, 2007." Apply the Objective Theory of Contracts (or if you're unfamiliar, the UCC's provision for a price to be fixed in terms of an agreed market or other standard as set or recorded).
It is not the case. You are presuming a good faith transaction where none exists. You are also grossly and egregiously misstating the legal conclusion--acting in accordance with a contract is not the issue. By entering into the second contract, you are engaging in unjust enrichment. You're also confusing contract law and property law in this regard. Unjust enrichment is a property interest, so even if I were to demur as to two valid contracts (which is not the case), unjust enrichment would still apply vis-a-vis taking more money than the harm alleged.
I'm still waiting for you to establish via language, common law, or statute that the terms apply only to consideration by Apple, which you have not established as fact. Until you provide an authority to limit the terms beyond what is stated, there is no conclusion you can draw.
yes, it actually does. they make these contracts based on reduced cost for the phone they give you, or a discount on service cost based on you comitting to them for a certain amount of time. you ending early means they didnt make enough profit to cover those costs.
You would hope that American Express does the correct business procedure and checks with Apple to see if their cardholders have benefited from both.
If so, they should be able to do more than just charge back the price protection.
Ok I'm with you on that but the EFT should really be on a sliding scale. You should not have to pay the same amount to be let out of your contract 6 months early as you do 20 months early.
I don't think AMEX is going to take a hit on the price protection. But I'm sure they'll be more than happy to spread those payments out across their customer and retail base, making every AMEX customer's transaction more expensive, if by a little bit.
Do I really care? No.
Is it legal? Yes.
Is it moral? No.
Then again we have thread after thread about hacking the iphone, people who don't think they need to pay for music because they don't think they should have to, ditto for ring tones...really no one should be surprised by this "grab what I can for me" mentality.
Do I really care? No.
Is it legal? Yes.
Is it moral? No.
Then again we have thread after thread about hacking the iphone, people who don't think they need to pay for music because they don't think they should have to, ditto for ring tones...really no one should be surprised by this "grab what I can for me" mentality.
Since this seems like this thread is wrapping up, I just wanted to spit my $0.02. I, like many, did not mind spending $599 for the iPhone when it first came out. I stood in line, I had a great time, I built my network, I got the initial oOohh's and aAahh's, and I enjoyed every second I used it.
This just goes to show that no matter how much you follow rumors and try to stay ahead of technology information, you are bound to get burnt eventually. Yeah you lost $200 two months later, but how do you think other's, who aren't so savvy with the news, or who don't obsess about updates like we do, feel? You finally get a taste of their agony. They buy a powerbook G4 2 weeks before the MacBook Pro came out... and what do they lose? An iSight camera, a whole core, gained possible repairs on broken plugs (pre-magsafe), frontrow and the remote... if you add those together... thats much more than measily $200.
But these people dont moan and bitch to Mr. Jobs, they suck it up and accept its a part of life. I find it funny how people call themselves "loyal" to Apple, and they feel apple owes them everything. It's the same as how people complain to their cellular phone company to give them free stuff just because they're "loyal"..... WOW!!! you paid your bills on time, that means you're so loyal.... you're supposed to pay your bills on time!
No matter how "loyal" you think you are, aside from the warranty that is provided with your product, Apple owes you nothing. So... I guess "you" were paying $3.29 for your Ultimate Cheeseburger at Jack-in-the-Box, and the following week, when they lowered it to $1.99 temporarily, you must have been the first one at the counter demanding that they retro-pay you for all the cheeseburgers you bought when it was $3.29
Lastly, I just want to say.... THANK YOU. Thank you for the free $100. I will glady use it not because I feel its what I deserve, but as entertainment that I can profit off the stupidity of those that feel the world revolves around them.
This just goes to show that no matter how much you follow rumors and try to stay ahead of technology information, you are bound to get burnt eventually. Yeah you lost $200 two months later, but how do you think other's, who aren't so savvy with the news, or who don't obsess about updates like we do, feel? You finally get a taste of their agony. They buy a powerbook G4 2 weeks before the MacBook Pro came out... and what do they lose? An iSight camera, a whole core, gained possible repairs on broken plugs (pre-magsafe), frontrow and the remote... if you add those together... thats much more than measily $200.
But these people dont moan and bitch to Mr. Jobs, they suck it up and accept its a part of life. I find it funny how people call themselves "loyal" to Apple, and they feel apple owes them everything. It's the same as how people complain to their cellular phone company to give them free stuff just because they're "loyal"..... WOW!!! you paid your bills on time, that means you're so loyal.... you're supposed to pay your bills on time!
No matter how "loyal" you think you are, aside from the warranty that is provided with your product, Apple owes you nothing. So... I guess "you" were paying $3.29 for your Ultimate Cheeseburger at Jack-in-the-Box, and the following week, when they lowered it to $1.99 temporarily, you must have been the first one at the counter demanding that they retro-pay you for all the cheeseburgers you bought when it was $3.29
Lastly, I just want to say.... THANK YOU. Thank you for the free $100. I will glady use it not because I feel its what I deserve, but as entertainment that I can profit off the stupidity of those that feel the world revolves around them.
I wonder how many HAVE gotten the benefits of both credits and are not posting in this thread. It is taboo to WRITE about it but when it comes down to it, most of us in here will have taken the deal. Lets face it.
Why is it only unethical when it comes to money, but when it comes to hacking the phone software or unlocking it for use on multiple networks, or paying the value of a new car to unlock your phone, thats alright?
Why is it only unethical when it comes to money, but when it comes to hacking the phone software or unlocking it for use on multiple networks, or paying the value of a new car to unlock your phone, thats alright?
I'm not sure any of it is okay to do but I think all phones in the U.S.A. should be unlocked by default. I understand in this case that Apple has a monetary interest in the money being paid AT&T each month because they're getting part of that. Using the phone on T-Mobile takes away from the revenue Apple gets. The statements that were made by Greg Joswiak and others seem to say that they'll take what they can get.
The only reason I'm against taking money from two places is that it ends up hurting other people who didn't buy the phone. I'm sure that American Express has some sort of account set up to handle it and it likely comes partly from membership fees but someone has to pay for it. It's not so different from shoplifting. People get away with it and sometimes, things work out but other customers pay for shoplifting.
We could have all phones unlocked in the usa but then all phones would be much more expensive. Phones are locked because carriers dont want you to take thier phone at the reduced price and then leave for another network. Although since the iphone is not subsidized I think dont think it should apply to it. Especially with thier being a EFT with the contract with AT&T.They did'nt subsidize the iphone so why should they get an EFT if I cancel?
The trouble is that other countries have unlocked phones that are cheaper than our locked phones, except in the case of free phones, of course.
There should not be a contract termination fee from AT&T. I heard about it from some AT&T executive the week before the release and it just didn't make sense. His saying "we have certain fixed costs" sounded like marketing rubbish. They just want to get some of the money back that they're paying to Apple monthly.
How dare they want to make money!
Seriously people where did this culture of socialistic "I will use your products but you can't tell me how" mentality come from?
Similar to the AMEX thing, who do you think you are taking money from? It's not AT&T, it's not Apple.
It's the people who pay the full price and honor their contractual obligations who are subsidizing your techno-addiction.
Doesn't it bother people that without honest consumers you wouldn't have these options?
It's not the stealing so much as the rudeness that goes with the assumption that they are somehow more entitled to their hard-earned money than I am.
I think you're confused, if you're directing your comments toward me.
I don't have an iPhone and I wouldn't, given the weak hardware and the fact that you have to be an AT&T subscriber or T-Mobile, if you unlock it. I'm quite happy with Sprint. My phone isn't as easy to use but works quite well.
Besides, I wouldn't want to be characterised as one of the obnoxious, arrogant, "I've got the iPhone and you don't" people, even though I wouldn't flaunt it.
Because unlocking the iPhone is legal. I don't necessarily agree that it is ethical, but society has deemed it to be in its laws pertaining to carrier locks. It has answered the ethical question by specifically allowing unlocking and protecting those with unlocked phones from legal liability. Entering into a contract for which you are ineligible is not legal. It's fraudulent. It's neither legal nor ethical.
At the end of the day, all transactional law holds individuals accountable for exercising good faith in transactions. That doesn't mean that the specific individual has rationalized it, but that a reasonable person (a legal entity, not a semantic argument for the thread) could reasonably expect to be entitled to more money than others for the same trouble. No such expectation can exist. You don't deserve a $299 iPhone just because you can effectively get one by double-dipping. That would be bad faith, and it's against the law. Whether they'll catch you or not doesn't change that.
Apple is issuing this credit to iPhone owners who have no other financial recourse as a good will gesture. People who have other means of correcting their overpayment can and should use them (since they can recoup the full $200, instead of just half). Once that overpayment is corrected, there is no basis for pursuing additional money for a nonexistent harm (particularly when excluded by the very language of the credit program).
No. It's legal and ethical to seek a price adjustment from Amex. It's legal and ethical to seek credit from Apple if you have received no other refund or consideration. By doing the former, you become ineligible for the latter.
Cut it out. The Amex agreement and the Apple rebate are separate, and are not mutually exclusive; everybody (who purchased with Amex) should make both claims and ignore your poor advice. Who are you billing for the amount of time you put into this
Find something better to do with yourself than get worked up over what Other People are doing.
The Apple rebate is for customers who have no received other compensation, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. It says so in plain English right in the terms. Any attempt to limit that, stunning mental acrobatics aside, is faulty logic.
Every place they intended to say "by Apple", they did. "Any other consideration" is not one of those places. This is painfully obvious, both in plain English and in contract language.
As far as I can tell, the only people getting worked up are on the other side of this issue. Mostly because they know they're wrong.Find something better to do with yourself than get worked up over what Other People are doing.
Just because you can physically do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing. You know that at best you should get your $200 back. It's that simple. You don't deserve and can't claim anything extra, legally or ethically.
I wasn't specifically targetting you, just using your comments as a point of discussion.