Couple of things, if you're going to link to a webpage that "supports" your argument, make sure it doesn't say "the answer is.....it depends." You're not going to win a case with that.
Well, it depends, sometimes that's fine. As in this case, the webpage says, and this is the important section:
From my link said:
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.
Notice the important part here. The question generally turns on whether the business' refusal of service was arbitrary or not. The plaintiff will claim that it was, and will make that an easy case to prove, by simply saying, "your honor, I have the cash here and would happily accept the laptop in exchange for the cash." So, in this case, a reason for denying the service/sale would have to be given otherwise it will appear arbitrary to any impartial observer, like a judge.
JonathanK81 said:
Secondly, your argument holds absolutely no water. If you've actually tried a case or been a part of one such as this, you'd know a judge cannot presume anything. He or she will not just assume discrimination took place because Apple chose not to sell to him. Yes, they're a business intended to make money, but denying a sale doesn't equate to discrimination being the reason for the denial. And for the record, Apple does have a limit on the amount of returns. Most companies do.
Ok a few points. First, you may be right regarding a limit to the amount of returns applicable, but for that to apply Apple would need to keep a record of some sort, and if you just keep buying the laptops cash, there is no record since you do not need to provide any identifying information (as I pointed out earlier).
Second, and back to the main point, you are right the judge cannot presume anything going in to the case. The judge must remain impartial.
But, if the plaintiff says he's willing to buy the laptop and adhere to all the policies applicable, and if he can show Apple has plenty of this laptop in stock and is currently selling to other customers, there are no reasonable grounds for refusing the sale, other than arbitrary ones or ones that would have to be proven by Apple. These reasons/argument alone place the burden of proof upon the business in question. Otherwise any business could just refuse to sell to any discriminated class, homosexuals for example, but deny that is the reason why they are refusing their sales. They would just always say that it's up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that discrimination did happen. So in these types of scenarios, all the plaintiff has to do is show there are no prima facie good reasons to prevent the sale. And that is easy to show by indicating the item is in stock, and that legal tender is being offered.
Now, unlike a criminal case, both sides have to prove that discrimination took place or it did not. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" or in the way your example seems to dictate "Apple is guilty until proven innocent."
Agreed, both sides have to demonstrate something. But since business' are there to make money, and since the merchandise and money are available, and the willingness of the client to exchange the money for the merchandise is present, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to sell the item other than for arbitrary/discriminatory ones. Now, as you pointed out, a good reason to refuse a sale might be Apple saying to the judge: "look, this person bought 10 laptops and keeps returning them", but if the customer is intelligent and doesn't leave a record of prior purchases/returns, as I advised the OP to do, that argument is not one that would be available for Apple to employ.
If that were the case, everybody and their mom would sue every time someone got denied service and claim discrimination.
How many companies do you know refuse to sell merchandise to paying customers? My bet is this pretty much never happens so there is no risk of saying "if that were the case, everybody would be suing". Business' are there to make money. You'd have to be pretty dumb not to accept it.
He'd have to prove discrimination took place,
I doubt that. Proving discrimination is virtually impossible in most scenarios, unless there is some documented evidence that there was explicit discrimination going on. No, circumstantial evidence is sufficient here to place the burden of proof upon the purposed discriminator. Now, being only circumstantial it is defeasible, but that requires some reasonable explanation for the denial of service.
and when you're going against a business as big as Apple, it would not be easy to prove. The amount of resources needed would not be worth the outcome considering you're basing things on presumptions and not actual facts.
I disagree. For what it's worth there was a blogger who went up against Apple because they refused to fix his defective GPU in his laptop. He won the case easily since Apple couldn't explain to the judge why they would deny the repair/refund. They sent a team of lawyers, it didn't help since they had no justifiable grounds for refusing to honor the warranty. Similarly here, unless they can provide warrantable grounds for denying the sale, the case would be easily lost; but that's why my bet is that no store will refuse the sale. Heck, I even had an Apple manager tell me to buy and return a laptop when mine was in for repair. He said "we don't officially do rentals, but here's how you do it." On another occasion, another Apple employee told me when I was hesitating to buy the iPad, to buy it and play with it, saying if I didn't like it, just bring it back. In other words they seem pretty happy to let people try their products. They still make money on them, and they know the products have great allure when you play with them.
