Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Screwing Little Guys
Message-ID: <2381@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 24 Mar 89 23:13:53 GMT
References: <79700022@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <96@armada.UUCP> <15903@cup.portal.com> <382@siswat.UUCP> <3481@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 34

In article <3481@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>In article <382@siswat.UUCP>, buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes:
>> 
>> If this had happened in Texas, you could sue under the Deceptive Trade
>> Practices/Consumer Protection Act.  
>
>> (23)	the failure to disclose information concerning goods or services
[...]
>
>Ahhh, but does it cover not telling you about a product not on the
>market yet?  I think a vendor might be willing to fight you on
>that, at least until its resolved by the courts.

If you ask "is this about to become obsolete?" and they say nothing or
"I don't know" and you buy and next week it becomes obsolete, my guess
is you got lied to.

"Failure to disclose" catches that erroneous "I don't know," provided
you ask someone who should know.  Presumably then that person's only
responsive answer would be "yes" or "no".  Since that person said
something nonresponsive, that person is hiding the real answer.  If the
real answer was "no", why would that person hide it?  Therefore, a
competent authority on that information (you don't believe salesmen, do
you? :) would have been in violation of the Act if you got any answer
other than "yes."

The trick is to ask all the way up the line until you get "yes" or "no"
or can prove the final answer of "I don't know" came from someone who
couldn't not-know.

				--Blair
				  "Get it?
				   Got it.
				   Good."