Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Limit One Per Customer

bembol

bembol

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 29, 2006
1,077
66
I don't get why Apple won't change their policy by limiting one per customer, especially on launch date/week or even month. LOL

Let's be honest here, majority will sell it for profit.

iPad 3 will still sell out, sell Millions and still be on top of the Tablet war. Let everybody, who really wants it have one.
 
Everybody who really wants one can go get one. What they're trying to limit is everyone who wants to buy one for use and 10 for resale.
 
The thing is if someone waits in line for 8 hours odd and wants to buy 2 then I think they have deserved it really.

The thing is if you bought 2 and ebayed 1 of them, it would greatly reduce the cost of your own iPad.

I guess it's supply and demand. What I didn't like last year was all the Chinese scalpers who were queuing up night after night after night in order keep buying and buying.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone buying a couple as a one-off
 
bembol said:
Let everybody, who really wants it have one.
Click to expand...

So you think ipads end up with people who don't really want to have one?

Seems to me anyone willing to pay more than retail in exchange for not standing on line must really want one, else why would they not just wait?

Or do you really mean that people who don't go stand on line aren't deserving of an ipad?

----------
LostSoul80 said:
Is it legal to deny a customer an order?
Click to expand...

Perfectly legal, provided that denial is not due to one of the prohibited forms of discrimination like race, religion, etc. Where it gets sticky is when someone pulls out the race card or something and makes a big stink about it like the woman who claimed Apple's refusal to take cash was discriminating against her.
 
Last edited:
LostSoul80 said:
Is it legal to deny a customer an order?
Click to expand...

Why would it be illegal? Granted, if they were only limiting, say, iPads sold to those of Asian descent, there might be something actionable in that...but I'm pretty sure if someone wants to limit numbers across the board it's just fine.

-->iDv.

----------
clyde2801 said:
If that's the case, the thousands upon thousands of restaurants, service stations and other small businesses who post 'we reserve the right to deny service to anyone' signs on their front doors are in deep doo-doo.
Click to expand...

Well, just posting a sign doesn't mean that it's valid. As noted above, if you deny service based on discriminatory criteria, you can point to your sign all you like. I'm pretty sure it won't hold up in court.

-->iDv.
 
LostSoul80 said:
Is it legal to deny a customer an order?
Click to expand...

How is denying a customer in this fashion illegal? We don't have an inalienable right to iPads. :eek:

Any business can impose restrictions on their services or products. If it becomes targeted and discriminatory, i.e. "no one with brown hair can eat here" then it becomes a matter of rights violation. Otherwise, 1-per-customer purchase restrictions are no more illegal than "no shoes, no shirt -- no service."
 
Off Topic:

Does anyone remember when Apple started taking online pre-orders for the iPad 3 in the UK, rather than having to go the store? Or where the available online immediately?
 
iDvisic said:
Why would it be illegal? Granted, if they were only limiting, say, iPads sold to those of Asian descent, there might be something actionable in that...but I'm pretty sure if someone wants to limit numbers across the board it's just fine.

-->iDv.

----------



Well, just posting a sign doesn't mean that it's valid. As noted above, if you deny service based on discriminatory criteria, you can point to your sign all you like. I'm pretty sure it won't hold up in court.

-->iDv.
Click to expand...

Look, it's late, I'm tired, and I don't want to frak with Con Law if I'm not getting paid for it. Not really my cup of tea, anyway.
 
clyde2801 said:
Look, it's late, I'm tired, and I don't want to frak with Con Law if I'm not getting paid for it. Not really my cup of tea, anyway.
Click to expand...

Nicely done. You simultaneously hinted at an unassailable claim to expertise ("I get paid for this 'law' stuff") and devalued further discourse on the matter ("You're not paying me, and further discussion is therefore worthless to me"). Well, I'm certainly no expert. I was just flappin' my jaw as part of a general "shootin' the ****" experience. :D

-->iDv.
 
iDvisic said:
Nicely done. You simultaneously hinted at an unassailable claim to expertise ("I get paid for this 'law' stuff") and devalued further discourse on the matter ("You're not paying me, and further discussion is therefore worthless to me"). Well, I'm certainly no expert. I was just flappin' my jaw as part of a general "shootin' the ****" experience. :D

-->iDv.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and I haven't really studied con law since my grad school. Governmental vs non governmental action, protected classes, blah, blah, blah. It's not important enough to me to study case opinions for two or three hours to win an internet pissing match.

I'm no expert either. I used to know enough to be a little dangerous, but no more.
 
clyde2801 said:
Thanks, and I haven't really studied con law since my grad school. Governmental vs non governmental action, protected classes, blah, blah, blah. It's not important enough to me to study case opinions for two or three hours to win an internet pissing match.

I'm no expert either. I used to know enough to be a little dangerous, but no more.
Click to expand...

Oh, no pissing match here. I was just throwing out a point--to add to the discussion. Not everything is a competition. :)

-->iDv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back