Credit card rebate AND Apple Rebate?

[Sobe]

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.

Are you suggesting that people are guilty of fraud and/or conspiracy to commit fraud?

 

[QCassidy352]

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.

You keep saying that, but do you have the slightest shred of evidence for your position? I'll bet not, because you're dead wrong. Whether apple gives you a rebate has no bearing whatsoever on your contractual relationship with AmEx.

If you have some authority to support your position, let's see it.

 

[matticus008]

Are you suggesting that people are guilty of fraud and/or conspiracy to commit fraud?

Misrepresentation and bad faith in performance, actually, both of which are breach of contract, and civil fraud, yes. Anyone doing this is absolutely liable for (there is no 'guilty' in torts) damages under the law. It's not likely that Apple will pursue the matter, but that doesn't change anything.

If you're referring to naimfan's comments (edit: that is, wrongly thinking something is legal), then a fraud in contemplation of law.

 

[scotty588]

Congrats to the people that got both. I am hoping to do the same. More power to ya.

 

[kellen]

Two things were brought to my mind when I read this thread.

First, who cares if people were able to get both of the rebates? Apple hasnt turned anyone down for the 100 rebate when they got there credit card to credit them back that i have heard. So if my parents felt bad and gave me 200 should apple not give me the money back? The only way i could see apple not giving the rebate is if was a chargeback (deduction from apples account) in what they gave to the owners. Its not.

Unless you believe it is going to severely affect the bottom line of apple and are a majority shareholder, what is it to you? Arguing over the internet for fun?

Second was that some people just like to hear themselves talk (or see their words on the screen).

 

[Sobe]

Two things were brought to my mind when I read this thread.

First, who cares if people were able to get both of the rebates? Apple hasnt turned anyone down for the 100 rebate when they got there credit card to credit them back that i have heard. So if my parents felt bad and gave me 200 should apple not give me the money back? The only way i could see apple not giving the rebate is if was a chargeback (deduction from apples account) in what they gave to the owners. Its not.

Unless you believe it is going to severely affect the bottom line of apple and are a majority shareholder, what is it to you? Arguing over the internet for fun?

Second was that some people just like to hear themselves talk (or see their words on the screen).

Maybe i don't like subsidizing other people's greed. Normally I wouldn't comment on it at all, but hey if people are going to advertize the fact, can you really expect people not to respond critically?

 

[snook911]

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.

Listen if I get a phone for free or at a discounted price I would expect to sign a contract and thier to be a EFT if I want to leave early. Thats the price you pay for getting a cheaper phone. All I am saying is that I paid full price for the iphone. AT&T did not pay anything in regards to my iphone and therefore does'nt lose anything if idecide to leave. Why should I have to pay a eft if I pay full price for my phone. Thats why there is no contract or eft for prepaid plans because you are paying full price for the phone.

 

[Sobe]

Listen if I get a phone for free or at a discounted price I would expect to sign a contract and thier to be a EFT if I want to leave early. Thats the price you pay for getting a cheaper phone. All I am saying is that I paid full price for the iphone. AT&T did not pay anything in regards to my iphone and therefore does'nt lose anything if idecide to leave. Why should I have to pay a eft if I pay full price for my phone. Thats why there is no contract or eft for prepaid plans because you are paying full price for the phone.

Probably because the only reason you can purchase the iPhone as is is because other people out there are subsidizing your choice by their sticking with AT&T.

Look at it this way, if everybody did what you did, would apple have been able to launch the iPhone knowing they could make no agreement with any wireless provider?

Possible, yes. But not very likely seeing as they get a cut from each AT&T subscriber.

So is it really unsubsidized or is it just subsidized differently?

Apple is recouping costs as people pay their AT&T bills. When someone buys an iPhone and doesn't use AT&T that money is lost.

Why do I care? Eh it's no big deal, but at least it should be known that their choices are made on the backs of people paying their bills in the regular ol' fashion.