Look What Happens When I Try To Get Money from dell!

Sorry, I thought we were continuing on a single thought train there (the request for Linux on the Vostro which was denied to the previous poster).

And as off track as this is getting, I think it's important to remember that this all goes back to whether someone is given the right to a refund or whether asking for one is a refund. Even if Dell's offerings were 99% Linux and only 1 laptop came with Vista, it wouldn't change whether the EULA allows a refund or not.

 

Right- and the OP can choose to try to get a refund, and Dell can choose to tell him where he can stick that refund. What I don't get is why some people are so outraged by the very concept of trying to get a refund for an unused OS. Why are people taking this so personally?

 

Nothing personal at all, this is a forum and were discussing it. And in this case the OS is not unused.

 

OK...to clear this up once and for all:

From http://www.dell.com/content/learnmo...atit&~line=desktops&~mode=popup&~series=dimen

Then, from Dell's Policies:

Then, further down the page, item #5:

This means, that your purchase (unless you have a separate purchase agreement with Dell) is bound by the terms in the Online Purchase Agreement. In this agreement, all software (in this case Vista) is bound by a license agreement and you agree that you will be bound by such license agreement.

By accepting delivery of the product, you are accepting and are bound by the terms and conditions shown.

Therefore, if you DO NOT agree to the software license agreement of Windows Vista, you are violating the terms and conditions of sale.

 

If you can't express yourself without name calling do us a favor and don't post.

 

first off, your word choice is rather inappropriate. you'd do better to measure your words in the future.

second, saying something is 'included in the price' in no way makes the distinction that you are paying X percent of the price towards it. Dell could just as easily be subsidizing the cost at their own expense, without adding any extra cost to you.

 

I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, but some (certainly not all) posters have seemed personally offended- or at least morally disgusted- by the OP.

 

Thanks for posting that!

I forgot about that nice agreement (for Dell )...

You can't order from them without agreeing to it because they tell you so on the phone AND you have to MANUALLY hit "I agree" online...

 

I think most people, like me, aren't too pleased when people attempt to run scams. Those few end up raising the cost of goods for the rest of us.

We're so charged mainly because Dell didn't hide the fact it came with Vista and since the guy already uses Windows we can assume he's read and agree to the EULA. He's calling Dell and saying "Hey I don't agree with the EULA! Give me my money back!" when it isn't the EULA he's harping about. He really wants to use the EULA as an excuse to knock the costs of his machine down even more.

The refund clause of the EULA is in there to allow people who read the document and don't agree to its terms (say wanting to use it on 5 pcs instead of 1) to get their money back. Since the OS is bundled with the machine it is logical for Dell to take their stance and he has the option to get his money back for the whole machine and buy a Dell Linux offering or go HP or anywhere else.

We just prefer people to be honest and not ruin it for the rest of us....

 

Admit it -- you didn't actually read the thread in your rush to state your opinion. Cause if you had, you'd have come across five (by my count) mentions of the fact that you couldn't get vista off the machine, or another OS on the machine, or even a different grade of the same OS on the machine at the time of sale.

Dell governs its relationship with a customer by ToS and EULA. MS governs its relationship with the customer by the ToS and EULA. A customer would be a chump if he governs his relationship with either of those entities not just by the ToS and EULA but also by some abitrary moral code. EULA says he's entitled to a refund = he's entitled to a refund, and if Dell refuses the refund they're in the wrong, not the customer. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. If Dell doesn't want to be put in a position to have to offer the refund, they could have negotiated a different terms with MS or offered another OS bundled with the system. They didn't. OP is not "gaming" the system. He's excersising his full rights under it.

Dell is forcing a customer to accept terms they have not read yet. And I suspect that the reason they've been quick to offer refunds when pressed (but not calling them refunds) is because they don't want their ability to do so challenged in court, since this is prob a grey area they are not so keen to have clarified.

 

He didn't agree to the EULA. He installed Vista Ultimate instead. As you have rightfully pointed out, the EULA is tied to the installation instance, not the the entire class of OS.

 

he is gaming the system, and his vitriolic post(s) (which he apparently deleted) prove he isn't the brightest bulb of the bunch.

1. Dell offers Linux-flavored hardware.
2. The OP (and I'm speaking of the OP only) didn't seem to contest the OS included in his laptop until he saw posts mentioning he could get some money back.
3. Dell has it within their right to claim that they subsidize the cost of the OS and not offer a partial refund. That some apparently received it only speaks to generous CS representatives and not a company-wide decision vis-a-vis this situation.
4. The idiotic language used by the OP (see the quoted posts above) point to a less-than-graceful attempt to reclaim some money. in that case, i applaud Dell.

 

Fair enough. I happen to disagree with your belief that OP's behavior affects the rest of us (mostly because 1) he represents a tiny portion of Dell's customers and 2) his "scam" won't work anyways), but I can respect it.

Ultimately, I come down on your side- in this particular case, I don't believe Dell should give OP compensation (note my non-use of the phrase "entitled to compensation," since I think that's a meaningless term in this context). My reluctance to join the charge of the anti-OP forces, however, stems in large part from my belief that there ARE a number of circumstances in which Dell SHOULD give compensation (misrepresenting its products, e.g., DDR3 vs. DDR2, significant delays following non-realistic ESDs, CSRs intentionally lying to make sales, etc.). Too many people seem to be offended by the *general* concept of seeking compensation from Dell for grievances, which I think is absurd.

 

I read his posts before he deleted them -- and you're right. If I were to judge him moral character, he wouldn't rate high with me. He did get attacked a lot, but he could have responded a bit more..maturely, however that doesn't reflect on the validity of his argument.

It sucks to get into arguments with good people over a case brought by ...let's just call him a questionable individual. But let's take the OP out of it. Should a person x be allowed to claim a refund if everything that the OP initially claimed holds true: he didn't accept the EULA that came with Vista. In other words, can Dell force you into acceptance of third-party EULAs through agreeing to theirs? If the answer is yes, why present you with the OS EULA at all then, if your acceptance is implied? I'm guessing this is a way shadier issue, legally, than we all realize. And, as I corrected in my original post, that is why Dell has been quick to offer comensations cause they prob don't want to shed any light onto it, legally.

BTW -- I did delete the "OP = smart, opponents=stupid" from my original post cause it was uncalled for and impolite, but I did originally write it. So it was there, and the quote is true, even if it's not there now.

 

I think you've hit the nail right on the head.

 

true, but speaking of myself, i ordered a D630 that came shipped with Vista Basic, even though I already purchased a copy of Ultimate through my school. While I never agreed to the EULA screen (I booted up straight to the Ultimate disc in the DVD drive), nor did i rip open the restore CD that came packaged with the system, I never had it in my mind to call up Dell to refund the 'money' that went into licensing the OS with the laptop.

i guess it goes to this - does the EULA that Dell prompts state that you can refund the costs of the OS if you refuse to agree to it? i still think it refers to how Dell packages the OS for its laptop - if Dell claims they subsidizes the cost of the basic/default OS on the system, they have it within their right to refuse the refund even if you don't acknowledge the EULA.

 

There's the rub, I think. Does it make sense to you that Dell would absorb part of the cost of Vista and yet (even though it would, in theory, make them money) refuse to sell machines w/o? Even at the same price?

I want to admit upfront that I have no knowledge of how such arrangements are made between software vendors and OEMs like Dell, but do you think it's possible that they have some kind of a discount arrangement worked out with MS that makes it a requirement for Dell to supply certain lines of laptops with Vista exclusively?

Ehhh, I know we're beating this topic to death, but I really find it interesting which is why it's so illuminating to read others' opinions on it.

 

From let's say Newegg, the OEM version of Home Basic is probably....what 90 bucks?

Now assume that Dell buys loads and loads of these so MS will give them a discount. Let's say 40-50 bucks. That would probably be in a perfect world where the end user could reap these rewards.

Now compare Dell to other manufacturers. Where else can you get this much compensation? (Mind you, I feel that people who ordered in July and waited a may get some form of compensation in which I have read that a good portion did).

Perhaps Dell isn't perfect, perhaps you should bring it up in their ideastorm if it is not already up there.

 

Just as an experiment (this proves nothing), I configured 2 laptops on the Dell website, the 1420 N with Ubuntu and the 1420 with Vista basic, with identical hardware, warranty, etc. The Ubuntu laptop came to $744 and the Vista Basic came to $794. $50 price difference.

However, mux1 (page 11 for original post) has brought an interesting policy from Dell to light:

His interpretation, to my very non-law-knowledgeable eyes, seems correct. Because Dell specifies that by purchasing their laptop you agree to all software license agreements on the laptop, you've implied your agreement to the Vista EULA, negating your ability to ask for a refund. That's how it looks to me, but I've been known to misinterpret things.

 

If this were a debate about Dell failing in those other areas you mentioned I'd be on the opposite side of this too. If Dell doesn't tell you what you purchased properly (DDR3 vs DDR2, et. al) they SHOULD give you your money back with NO restocking fee. I'm sure the courts would agree...

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this issue at least

 

In the European Community this Dell clause (the one that states you have to accept the terms of an agreement you have yet to read) will be considered invalid/null/void being it a vexatious clause.

I have an hunch that it will prove so in the US too, were it brought to the attention of a court.

 

I have gotten back $50 for both my Inspirion (home and the Vostro (SB) so it does work. You have to call to get it as they will NOT do it over the email

 

That certainly could be. As I said, I am not well versed in legal matters, US or otherwise. Seeing as I just ordered a D630, and have my own copies of XP Pro and Vista Business through my school, I do have a bit of an interest in this. It would be far from heart breaking if I wasn't able to get a refund for software that I would never use, but I would certainly like to see any evidence in either direction. I also don't want to inadvertently "scam" Dell out of money. Heh, maybe the delays that Dell's having with their shipments will be good because it will grant me more time to make a decision on this

 

In the US I am pretty sure any contract which you are forced to enter into without first being given access to the terms to review is not enforceable as you cannot agree to terms you do not know.

 

Here is a copy of the Vista Home Basic EULA from the Microsoft website. Could Dell argue that the EULA is accessible because you can easily find it on the internet from official sources? It may be on the Dell site somewhere too, but I didn't look there.

 

They could argue that but I don't think as a consumer it's your responsibility to go hunt down the documents, also the consumer can always argue that they do not know what EULA they need to look for (many people still don't know what it is let alone what or where to look for it) or that you do not have access to it for any number of reasons.

In general at the time of accepting a contract the proposing party needs to make all of the binding terms available for inspection.

 

I don't think so, and for several reasons.
1. that could not be the same eula you are required to agree with
either because the terms of the eula vary depending on the os version, on the country, on the agreement with the manufacturer, or simply might change with time.
2 becuse you cannot be sure that is the same eula that will come with your laptop. I would never sign a contract saying that the terms I have to agree with are written smewhere else and it's up to me to find them out. No way: the terms must be clearly stated.
3 because the eula I am required to agree with is on the laptop. So there is no point in asking to agree with it before. Either you ask for my agreement before shippinf the laptop (and so you won't require me to accept the EULA after I've receeived it) or you accept the fact that I might not want to accept the eula terms later.

 

All of those reasons that Devedander and Sredni brought up make sense. It did occur to me that in order for Dell to be able to enforce that clause, they would have to not give the user the option of agreeing to the EULA when they receive the computer. Dell would have had to already agreed to it for them. They're obviously not doing that, which is good, but it makes me wonder how Dell expects to enforce that clause if it's brought under any legal investigation. They can rather easily intimidate the majority of their buyers with it, but it doesn't appear to hold water when examined. Right now I'm thinking to try to get a refund for Vista Basic when my D630 arrives.

 

"because the OS was free of charge" ???

OK, the Vista is free, then why DELL charge $$ to upgrade Vista? For example, you need to pay $99 to jump from Vista basic to Vista business.

 

Dell was trying to claim that Vista Basic is included in the laptop at no extra cost to the consumer, not that Vista in general is free. They said they were giving away basic, but that wouldn't negate an upgrade cost to on eof the other versions. Dell doesn't get Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate licenses for the same price from Microsoft, so they wouldn't provide them all for the same price either. Regardless, Vista Basic fairly obviously costs the consumer something, why else would completely identical laptops, one with Ubuntu and one with Vista Basic, cost different?