We all click on these things "I accept", but should software licence agreements be allowed to affect our statutory rights, especially since we can only tell if a piece of software is fit for the purpose claimed by trying them out?
2006-10-23 22:56:39 · 2 answers · asked by mesun1408 6 in Computers & Internet ➔ Software
I'm not necessarily saying that all software licence agreements should be null and void, just that they shouldn't be able to dodge their responsibility to sell products of merchantable quality.
2006-10-23 23:13:23 · update #1
The comparison with a music CD is interesting - if there was a manufacturing fault with a music CD you'd want your money back or at least a replacement yet we are expected to put up with buggy poorly designed software - how does that work?
2006-10-24 03:51:58 · update #2
Fit for purpose covers general claimed ability.
A s/w house enduser agreement cannot affect your statutory rights, thats the whole point of them, no-one can take them away from you.
So, if a word processor allows you to try a letter, but does not allow you to select font size 16 and have it bold blue...its still fit for purpose. Same applies if it crashes once in a while, thats allowed under fit for purpose legislation.
But I agree with you, its is just about the only industry where you have to commit a lot of money without actually seeing the product before hand. I guess the manufacturers would say there are shows/fairs and decent s/w shops that will demonstrate the s/w for you. Also, many retailers are now offering 30day money-back.
So buying a package over the internet is just like buying a CD you haven't heard before, just because the music is rubbish doesn't mean the CD isn't fit for purpose.
2006-10-23 23:09:22 · answer #1 · answered by Michael H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's life
2006-10-23 23:05:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋