Help-Cathe Cardio Fusion??

[mtnmom]

Originally Posted by ~^~RedFlame~^~

I agree. It would have been nothing for them to make some change on the label, even just alter the entire color scheme digitally without changing the label otherwise at all. Just to single them out. But they are making SURE that you pay THEIR price. I guess you always take a risk, but with this particular disc, it will be much greater, for sure.

It's clear (to me, anyway) that they are trying to eliminate the re-sale market. I don't know why they harped on the bootleg issue that plagues eBay. That has nothing to do with distinguishing their own defective disks. I think they threw that into their response to further disway buyers from attempting a purchase of a used DVD. It's their business decision, and all you can do is be careful who you buy from if you buy a used one. But I always have been.

[~^~RedFlame~^~]

Originally Posted by mtnmom

It's clear (to me, anyway) that they are trying to eliminate the re-sale market. I don't know why they harped on the bootleg issue that plagues eBay. That has nothing to do with distinguishing their own defective disks. I think they threw that into their response to further disway buyers from attempting a purchase of a used DVD. It's their business decision, and all you can do is be careful who you buy from if you buy a used one. But I always have been.

That was exactly the impression that I got. To send out this 'warning' causing us to be very nervous about buying their products anywhere but where they will make the profit. I guess one can't blame them for that part, but the defective disc IS a completely separate issue!

[LCC]

Originally Posted by Mary09

I disagree. Unless the buyer somehow agrees to it in advance I don't think there is a 'swap', and that the only 'transaction' is the seller independently choosing to send new DVDs. What buyer has agreed to this swap? Where could they get this understanding without the buyer being consulted first? Or did they contact each of you and ask if you'd like to swap? If they want to do returns by request, that's another thing.

As previously stated, there is "legal" versus "illegal" and "right" versus "wrong".

Clearly, if people want to keep the defective disks and Ebay either the defective copies or live with the defective copies and Ebay the good copies, I can't stop them.

Is it "illegal"? Maybe, maybe not. SNM should have been smart and made each buyer fill out a webform promising to honor the exchange.. Then, there would be no question that each buyer only has license to one copy of the media. The way it stands, I suppose people can play dumb and argue "gee, I thought they just sent me more as a present or something."

That said, it will never be "right" by my way of thinking, to take advantage of a company that is only trying to be customer friendly by sending out the replacements before they get the bad units back. In any swap, somebody has to go first, and I don't understand why anyone would think that because SNM is going first, it's okay to profit off of it.

I shall now bow out of this discussion, since people tend to do whatever they want to do anyway.

Laura (LCC)

[Sue B]

Originally Posted by LCC

Is it "illegal"? Maybe, maybe not. SNM should have been smart and made each buyer fill out a webform promising to honor the exchange.. Then, there would be no question that each buyer only has license to one copy of the media. The way it stands, I suppose people can play dumb and argue "gee, I thought they just sent me more as a present or something."

It isn't "dumb", it's the law. Any merchandise sent to you without your consent can be treated as free, including a duplicate of what you already bought (or in Cardio Fusion's case, was sent for free). See this page under "Unordered Merchandise" for details:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/.../mailorder.htm

If SNM was truly smart, they would have customers contact them and request replacement DVDs, just as all other DVD recalls have been handled by everyone else. Has there ever been a case of an "involuntary recall"?

[~^~RedFlame~^~]

Unordered Merchandise
Whether or not the Rule is involved, in any approval or other sale you must obtain the customer’s prior express agreement to receive the merchandise. Otherwise the merchandise may be treated as unordered merchandise. It is unlawful to:

1. Send any merchandise by any means without the express request of the recipient (unless the merchandise is clearly identified as a gift, free sample, or the like); or,
2. Try to obtain payment for or the return of the unordered merchandise.

Merchants who ship unordered merchandise with knowledge that it is unlawful to do so can be subject to civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation. Moreover, customers who receive unordered merchandise are legally entitled to treat the merchandise as a gift. Using the U.S. mails to ship unordered merchandise also violates the Postal laws.

Looks like legally it can be kept. So we are back to the difference between legal and 'right'. I just wonder why anybody would WANT to keep the defective disc, or have a problem returning it as long as SNM is paying the postage. Unless they have pawned it off on some poor unsuspecting soul, that is.