the legalities behind the Employee Purchase Program

Youve been so sure that all these EPP Meyer orders would have no problem, how do you explain the cancelled orders now? Including "Andrews". Running out of smilies?

 

I'm not taking sides here, but when did Andrew say his order was canceled? He only said it was "under review" which he interprets as cancelled, but that's only conjecture.

 

Why do you hope that everyones order gets canceled or hope that their warranty is problematic???

What do you gain? A "Sick and Depraved" feeling of Victory?

Are you challenged...

 

Only contributing to the "conjecture" that everyone else on this forum is doing. If its negative to Meyer order customers, of course you wont like it, but if the potential truth hurts so much, I recommend you stay off all related deals and tech sites.

By your mere assertion that everything is fine, you are potentially screwing over someone that thinks their EPP Meyer deal is 100% Kosher. Thats a disservice.

Show me once where I said I hope that EPP orders get their warranties cancelled. MANY have referenced SkiBunnys "inside" information on invalid EPP order warranties being cancelled in the past. You have anything better to contribute? Please do so, because your posts are weak and lacking wit, despite your best efforts. Ill take an insiders info over your pansy one liners.

Continue enjoying your fantasy EPP trip.

 

Fair enough. Obviously he has more credibility than anyone on this forum, but you cant deny there is an effort by Lenovo to stop and cancel the Meyer orders. This goes against all the claims that ThickpadBoy (and the poll results) makes about Lenovo deliberately spamming Meyers info to gain sales.

Im NOT saying Lenovo will cancel others orders now or even in the near future, but EPP MEyer orders should at the very least know whats happening. For the people that are sticking with their orders, some dont care if the warranty is denied, but to some, it would be a deal breaker. It would be to me. And taking any "Legal" action against Lenovo for a warranty denial is quite unrealistic.

 

I'm not sure how all of this will end up playing out, and either way it doesn't matter to me. BUT Thinkpad Boy DOES have a legitimate argument in saying that if Lenovo "charges" and "ships" you a laptop, they are engaging in a contract. As I mentioned before, in none of the online written contracts I agreed to in my EPP purchase did it say Lenovo or IBM would terminate any type of warranty due to fraud or misuse of EPP. I'm not saying SkiBunny is lying or it hasn't been done before, but that Lenovo/IBM has a HUGE problem on its hands by doing this AFTER the fact of shipping out and providing the product. Its never implied to anyone anywhere, so revoking that is a huge breech of contract and anyone would have a good case to either go after Lenovo or at least go through the credit card company to get some sort of reimbursement. Ive already called AMEX and spoken to them and they said they would protect me in the case a company voided a warranty without it specifically written.

The bottom line is, if the deal is not a "kosher" one, then its Lenovo's responsibility to step up to the plate, get their s$%t in order and cancel the orders ASAP. IF they start shipping out discounted laptops, they can't legally start saying "Oops, our bad... we screwed up royally! We shipped you something we shouldn't have at the wrong price, thus we we still take your hard earned money but not provide you any type of warranty or support service for you, despite the fact that its built into the price and contract". That's a huge no-no and even if the Credit Card company didn't come to the rescue, it makes for a great legal case!

Again, we shall see. As everyone is saying, this is all conjecture at this point!
Only time will tell!

 

That is true, and your perspective that this is still an unknown is the right one. I dont think SkiBunny has any reason to lie, so we will have to see about that and obviously something is going on within Lenovo regarding the Meyer EPP orders. Remember, you are going to have a hard time with any charge back on a charge made more than "x" amount of days (varies from 30-90 days). Any legal case brought by a customer will be faced with whether one used the EPP code within Lenovo/IBMs terms, but lets not dredge up the "Friend" debate again. At the end of the day, hopefully everyone gets their orders QUICKLY and without troubles.

 

See, that's exactly the problem. There aren't any terms and conditions listed on the website. In fact, I voiced my concern about that in post #1 of this giant thread.

 

Well I placed another EPP order as a "guest" without a problem since my last one was canceled (described earlier in this thread).

My question about the legitimacy of this is: if Lenovo really has a problem with the Meyer EPP orders, then why the hell do they still allow the login info to work and orders to be placed?!

It seems obvious that they would disable the Meyer EPP login info if they didn't want it being used. Or, does it make more sense to keep the login info working, allow more orders to be placed, and then go through the hassle of cancelling them as they come in?! I think the former. I guess time will tell.

 

If you read the warranty terms, it says it can be voided in a case of fraud, and I am certain that Lenovo can make a case that posing as Meyer or a friend or Meyer and buying a laptop using his serial number is fraud, thus they have every right to cancel the warranty.

 

Contracts are voidable if there is misrepresentation. A simple example first. I want to hire a carpenter to redo my kitchen. The guy tells me he has 20 years experience so I'm willing to pay more than I would pay for someone with 10 years experience. Later I find he has only 10 years experience. That's misrepresentation and the contract is voidable.

Ah, but what if it is an honest mistake? What if the carpenter never told me he has 20 years experience but instead gave me his resume and because of a typo in one of the dates it looks as if he has 20 years experience. The carpenter could show business cards that say "10-years experience" and get witnesses saying that they always heard him say he had only 10 years of experience. If he did give me the erroneous resume, it is still misrepresentation. It really does not matter that he was not trying to be dishonest or even that he did not know how I valued experience when I entered into the contract. Misrepresentation is an objective test: what matters is how the faulty party would appear to a rational and lawful observer.

If someone goes to a site clearly labeled "IBM Employee Purchase Program" and uses the last name and serial number of an IBM employee to log on to the side, how are they representing themselves? They are representing themselves as someone who can use the IBM EPP. Based on that information, Lenovo is willing to enter into a sales contract which has better conditions than for the general public.

Here's the deal. If the contract goes through and Lenovo later finds that the person in question was not eligible for the EPP rebate, Lenovo can argue misrepresentation. Lenovo does not have to demonstrate criminal intent to show misrepresentation. They just have to show that:

1. The EPP is restricted to a certain class of people.
2. By login onto the site, the buyer represented himself as someone eligible for the EPP.
3. The terms of the contract were better than they would otherwise have been because of point 2.
4. Lenovo now knows that the buyer is not eligible for EPP.
5. Therefore there was misrepresentation and the contract is voidable.

The fact that the buyer did not know what the terms of the EPP are has no bearing on the issue here.

 

If they have that in the contract, great. Something I need to point out however, to avoid confusion about misrepresentation.

There does not need to be a "misrepresentation clause" in a contract. In contractual law there are basic rules that govern how all contracts are created, satisfied, voided, etc. Since these rules are part of contract law and are ground rules for *all* contracts they do not need to be explicitly included in the clauses of a contract.

Misrepresentation is one of those basic rules.

 

You dont want a legal fight over this LOL.
If you've ever been in a lawsuit, you know it's a PITA and that it's the laqthat usually it's only the lawyers that win.

I told ya guys last week that your extended warranty would likely be honored or refunded.

Warranties are not discounted by EPP.

But your basic warranty might be voided if you stole an identity to procure something to which you weren't properly entitled. I assure you that IBM has done that in circumstances such as this and other stolen goods.

Of course, thinkpads have been Lenovo for over a year so I dont know if that's changed for Lenovo thinkpads. As I told someone by PM a week ago, I've never been contacted by Lenovo to confirm an EPP purchase, in the year-plus since IBM sold the Thinkpad line to Lenovo.

 

In contract law, a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

According to Gordon v Selico (1986) 18 HLR 219 it is possible to make a misrepresentation either by words or by conduct, although not everything said or done is capable of constituting a misrepresentation. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.[1] If one party claims specialist knowledge on the topic discussed, then it is more likely for the courts to hold a statement of opinion by that party as a statement of fact.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Representation is not a term
2 Types of misrepresentation
3 Remedies
3.1 Rescission
3.2 Damages
4 See also
5 Authorities
5.1 External Links



[edit] Representation is not a term
As enacted by the Misrepresentations Act[3], the statement in question may constitute a representation even if later incorporated into the contract as a term (i.e. a warranty, condition or innominate term).

An alternative approach, applied in parallel but in exclusivity to, is to find a collateral contract by interpreting the representation as a promise accompanied by some sort of consideration (see Heilbut, Symons & Co. v. Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30 (H.L.)). The collateral contract will have the effect of adding the representation as a term to the contract.

If the representation is found to be a term then the normal remedies for breach of contract apply.


[edit] Types of misrepresentationThere are four frameworks in which an action may be brought. Depending on the type, the remedies available vary:

Fraudulent misrepresentation (Derry v Peek) is when the representation is made with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. This is generally a difficult type of misrepresentation to prove but allows for a remedy of both damages and rescission. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation can also be brought as a tort. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly.[4]
Negligent misrepresentation at common law is when the representation is made carelessly while having no reasonable reasons for believing it to be true. This class of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced in order to allow for a remedy of damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud could be found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort. Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108 however, transported the tort into contract law, stating the rule as:
if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable
Negligent misrepresentation under Statute, enacted by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. When dealing with a negligent misrepresentation it is most lucrative[5] (joint with fraudulent misrepresentation, Contributory Negligence notwithstanding[6]) for an action to be brought under statute law as the burden of proof that is required passes to the person who made the statement. So it is for the person who made the negligent statement to prove that the statement was either not one of fact but opinion and that "had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true"[7] - the so-called innocent defence.
This creates an inconsistency of law due to the low burden and damages being calculated as extensive as those under fraudulent misrepresentation whereby a "wicked mind"[8] is the basis of action. It is, to use the words of Rix J, "a mighty weapon"[9]. Due to academic and judicial criticism in this area, the law is ripe for reform - probably adjusting the measure of damages to that of negligent misrepresentation at common law.[10]

Innocent misrepresentation occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.[11] Prior to Hedley Byrne, all misrepresentations that were not fraudulent were considered to be innocent. This type of representation primarily allows for a remedy of rescission, the purpose of which is put the parties back into a position as if the contract had never taken place. Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967, however, allows for damages to be awarded in lieu of rescission if the court deems it equitable to do so. This is judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the claimant from it.

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Rescission
Main article: Rescission
Generally, the effect of misrepresentation is that it makes the contract voidable not void ab initio. This is important for two reasons. Firstly because the representee can continue to be bound by the contract at her will. Secondly because the transactions and effects of the (voided) contract are recognised as to have taken place, therefore if a party transfers title of property to a third party of which the former only holds title to pursuant to the voided contract, the third party can retain legal title.[12] Rescission can be done either by informing the representor or by requesting an order from the court. There are certain circumstances where rescission is not possible though. The idea behind rescission is that the parties are restored to the positions they were before entering into the contract. Therefore, if this is not possible, rescission is not an option.[13]

The Money Shot...

If the representee discovers the misrepresentation and fails to take steps to avoid the contract, then he may not be able to rescind it.


[14] The time limit for taking such steps varies depending on the type of misrepresentation. In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the time limit runs until when the misrepresentation ought to have been discovered, whereas in innocent misrepresentation, the right to rescission may lapse even before the representee can reasonably be expected to know about it.[15]

In certain circumstances, third party rights may interfere with rescission and render it impossible. For example, if B contracts with A to sell a house with a misrepresentation and then A sells the house to C, the courts are not likely to permit rescission as that would require C to give up the house.

In England and Wales, under Misrepresentations Act 1967 s. 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the court has the discretion to award damages instead of rescission.


[edit] Damages
In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, a claim for damages is under the tort of deceit, making the damages tortious, in other words, only actual losses are recoverable. If the losses are calculated under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, damages for misrepresentation are calculated as if the defendant had been fraudulent, even if he has been only negligent. This is a wider scope than usual tortious liability, as it protects the claimant's loss even if not reasonably foreseeable. Inclusion of the representation into the contract as a term will leave the remedy for breach in damages as a common law right. The difference is that damages for misrepresentation usually reflect C's reliance interest, whereas damages for breach of contract protect C's expectation interest, although the rules on mitigation will apply in the latter case. In certain cases though, the courts have awarded damages for loss of profit, basing it on loss of opportunity.[16]

In cases of innocent misrepresentation, the court has discretion to award damages instead of rescission where rescission is available.[17] These damages differ from rescission in that they only take into account the representee. Recently, this has been used as a remedy to compensate for innocent misrepresenation whereby rescission is barred through no fault of the representee. For these purposes, Jacob J in Thomas Witter v TBP[18] extended the availability of these damages to cases in which rescission had been available at some point after the misrepresentation.

 

Wow, that was a lot of text, Thinkpad Man! I'm agree with SkiBunny that you we want legal fight over what? - $200 max! Just get what you are entitled to and save you time, which is money too

 

SkiBunny... first off I truly appreciate all the info yor provide for this board and this topic

However I must disagree on one item... when I added the 1 year On-site with Thinkpad Accident Protection Upgrade to my order, it was definitely discounted more so with EPP over purchasing it through the normal 25% off through the regular site. Maybe this is new since Lenovo took over?

Secondly... whats all this about stealing? I never went out of my way to steal anything be it a computer or an identity. I merely used a "number" and "last name" posted on a "public" notebook website. If that constitutes stealing identity then maybe I have bigger things to worry about like a felony for theft of identity! Yikes! If I did use an EPP account without authorization, it's up to Lenovo follow up with the actual employee, to flag it if need be, and then delete it, and shut the damn account down already. Which they might eventually get around to doing... whats taking so long is anyones guess.

In addition, I, nor anyone else on this board has physically "stolen" any laptops or goods. Everyone supplied a credit card (which will eventually be charged) and no one is getting anything for free. We are talking about an extra 15% off an order. I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing as stealing a discount, LOL. Of course, maybe I'm wrong!

Again, I do appreciate the info SkiBunny, and if anything, I'm truly getting a great education on contracts and misrepresentation via this topic!

 

Great find Thinkpad man! I agree that posing a huge legal fight over this is not worth the $200+ dollars one might save. However there is a principal at stake here where it seem Lenovo is aware of the deal getting out of hand as some people have spoken to reps about it already. If Lenovo DOES continue to take orders with that accounts EPP discount AND ship out any items associated to orders on that EPP account, then they knowingly misrepresented themselves if they don't in the very least contact the person whom purchased the laptop. The burden of responsibility is squarely on them for letting the "Meyer" deal insanity go on and then continue to take orders on it as it looks like someone even did still tonight! Craziness I tell you! LOL!

 

I think what we're all missing here is that the Employee Purchase Program is quite esoteric at best. Because they don't have a contract laid out for buyers like us, we don't necessarily know for sure what the program is supposed to be like. Right now, you guys (on both sides of the argument) are assuming that some form of misrepresentation is taking place when someone uses the Meyer deal without Meyer's consent. The problem is that Lenovo has never described what "misrepresentation" entails.

For instance, 2 months ago, everyone was hot on the IBM Shareholder deal, especially people who weren't shareholders (go figure). Lenovo, as far as I'm concerned, did not have a problem with non-shareholders using the shareholder deal. This shows that we can't just make assumptions about what EPP is supposed to be like, that's why I started this thread in the first place.

Lemur, you think you know what EPP entails, but as a matter a fact, you don't. None of us do because Lenovo doesn't outline for the buyer (not the employee) what the EPP contract is. What is fraud? What is misrepresentation? Only Lenovo knows, and they aren't telling us.

 

johnny, I see your point, but just for kicks, lets say this was a trial by jury. Do you really think that the majority of Meyer EPP users could convince a jury that they absolutely did not know that there was something wrong about using an IBM employee's personal information?

 

I'm sorry, but I can't entertain you. Trials on these matters don't involve juries and you shouldn't be so skeptical anyway. Everything in America operates on the fine print.

 

And that mentality is the exact reason everything in this country is litigated and contributes to attorneys being negatively stereotyped. Just because one walks and talks like a victim, doesnt mean they are.

 

It doesn't matter whether someone feels it's right or wrong. The law is meant to be impartial and apply to all people equally.

A contract can be voided (in the U.S. and other countries) if one of the parties misrepresents anything in the contract (the contract being the agreement of a person to buy and a company to sell, in this case):

So, by using the Meyer logon, each person represented that they were Meyer and were entitled to the EPP by way of being Meyer.

Whether this was a marketing ploy by Lenovo, whether it's something they'll just ignore, or whether they'll void all orders placed using the Meyer EPP is something we'll have to wait and see.

Hopefully, it was a marketing gimmick. However, if this "Meyer" is a real person and his account information was accidentally leaked, he/she may get into trouble and Lenovo could potentially void all the orders.

 

I could be mistaken about whether the extended warranty is discounted. I wasn't referring to the accident protection warranty. I guess the latter is indeed discounted, but I believe everyone pays the same for extending the warranty on manufacturing defects.

 

There isnt any proof of how the information became so public, but SkiBunny confirmed that he is a real employee based in CA. I believe, of the major forums that posted Meyers info, NBR was one of the last to be asked to remove it. If Lenovo deliberately leaked the info, then NO orders would have been cancelled thus far.

 

No unfortunately in civil court the burden of proof always rests on the plaintiff

Quoting contract law and legal precedent is interesting, but it's not practical for the small sums of money you're fighting over. The minimum retainer for any lawyer is $1000-$2000. If they denied your warranty coverage, it'd be more prudent to buy a new one than to hire legal representation.

 

Let's go through this a fourth time:
How do you know logging on means you were Meyer? Did you even know that EPP discounts can be offered to friends and family of the employee? Using EPP doesn't mean you are the employee. How do you know what kinds of actions void the contract? Where is the contract?

Look at the shareholder deal. Did logging on mean you were a shareholder? How come Lenovo didn't have a problem with it? Now can you still assume logging on EPP means you are posing as Meyer? Short answer: You can't.

Maybe I should make this my signature or something.

 

yes he is, still there

i don't think he will necessarily get into trouble; he could claim his info was publicly leaked by someone else as vengeance. Perhaps a disgruntled ex-g/f (or ex-b/f if he's gay lol)

 

Excellent Points !

To be Totally Honest(here's my story):

I have a Rock-Solid IBM T41, 3 years superlative service from the unit. Never ever malfunctioned/Failed...

I have been in the market for a new high-end laptop and a pda, 8525 to tether for constant on-line use on the road, for travel,business, etc.

I have been browsing lenovo for the last week waiting for the T61 w/ santa rosa. (I am a "Gadget Junkie" an "Addict" "I am Powerless over Electronics and my life will become unmanagible if I'm 'In the Disease State' lol)

So, anyway, I limit myself to 1 Long Binge every 3 years, when I pursue my fix with electronics. I buy everything in site for a few months; New Desk-top, laptop, pda, Cell-phone,(just got the Moto v6 Maxx-3G-. Wow. And of course I've Designed and built my own electronics(Amps, Computers, Guitar electronics for quite some time)

So...
I come to this site the other night and see the link regarding eep and all the other ways to save $$ and get the nth degree of tech.

I began to explore the different discounts I qualify for:
* Alumni
* Shareholder
* uncle with ibm since 1986
* >gov
Etc, Etc...

So,
I start getting Quotes;
On all of those different discounts and Portals.

After a few hours I'm not sure what portal I'm even in, Alumni, Corporate Perks, .gov, Regular, etc.

Then I periodically return to Johnnys thread and hear all of the "Supposedly" conditions of each order catagories and start looking for "Conditions and Limitations" on each Lenovo Portal.

I can find No specifics, Just Hearsay from the "Peanut Gallery" about if you buy this or that way;
* you CANNOT return or Cancel, etc., etc...

The answer IS NOT contained on the Lenovo website, Anywhere.
When they finally answer the phone, I ask"Does it matter what program you buy from besides the price. The rep says Absolutely not...

So when one submits "Order" a work auth is generated in Singapore(or where-ever) to build...
There is no contemplation, scrutiny, examination, conjecture, etc.--
"They BUILD Laptops" That's what they do...hehe lol...

That's my take, with a "general Disclaimer"; "I could be Wrong"...

 

They have to prove that you/us/we were "Purposely, with INTENT, set out to defraud...
Do you know how difficult almost impossible it is to determine "Intent"...

IBM/Lenovo WILL NOT risk "Mud in their face over a few Thousand of POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL PROFIT...
SEE THE BIG PICTURE. Please...

 

Did you ever hear about that Guy...
Oh Yea, OJ Simpson...

BTW-I met that little Rat, Barry Scheck...Rat

 

Per my Dilemna above ^^^^^^^

 

Fixed....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Holy crap, a quintuple post. This is unprecedented.

 

Edit button FTW!

So here's a question: even considering that Lenovo has no guidelines for "employee misrepresentation" made publicly known either via phone calls or on their website, do you really think they intended for one employee to consent to dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of laptops being sold at 15% on his/her discount?

It kind of makes me think that in light of this, the E.P.P. will now have some kind of restrictions placed upon it, which is too bad...

Even if it is entirely plausible that Mr. Meyer has such a large repertoire of friends all over the country, it makes sense that Lenovo might want to limit this, as most coupons for a great bargain are limited to X per customer.

 

There are hundreds of "other Discounts and Promo's available"
Lenovo has more "Smoke and Mirrors" in their Marketing/sales than an old fashioned Haunted house...

 

It's a rule of law that the burden of proof in a civil case rests with you, the plaintiff. You must prove your entitlement to warranty/insurance coverage for your claim.

If you want the benefits of the coverage, or its equivalent dollar value, you'd have to sue and prove you're entitled to it. Just like if you smash your car and the insurance company refuses coverage, the burden of proof is on you to show you're covered. In either case, if there is any misrepresentation on the part of the applicant, then your coverage is void. Even if you paid for it.

Lots of people get discounts by misrepresenting some aspect of themselves when they purchase insurance coverage, only to find later when something happens that their coverage is denied. IBM has done similar thing to some people who in the past were found to have made an EPP purchase without the explicit knowledge and consent of the employee.

 

A few notes:

1. In his very long post, ThinkpadMan copied the Wikipedia page on misrepresentation.

2. Again, let me point out that a contract does not need to have any explicit clause about misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is part of basic contractual law. It automatically governs all contracts. In this case, there is no requirement that the purchase contract or warranty say anything about misrepresentation or even say something like "these conditions are only for somebody who is eligible for the EPP". So the argument that goes "but I saw nothing in writing in what I agreed to" is not a valid defense for misrepresentation.

3. Let me also repeat myself on the topic of intent. The intent of the misrepresenter has no bearing on whether there was misrepresentation or not. At most, the misrepresenter's intent will distinguish between fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation. It can also help you look better in the eyes of an arbitrator or a judge but that's all intent can do.

4. Even if innocent misrepresentation can be proven, was the Wikipedia article points out, damages can be awarded. I would not be eager to go in front of an arbitrator to find out whether damages can be awarded against me. (By the way, don't be fooled by the word "innocent" in "innocent misrepresentation". You can still be found to have caused innocent misrepresentation. The word innocent does not mean there are no consequences.)

5. Rescission ain't so great. If a purchase contract for a laptop is rescinded, the buyer would get his money back but would have to return the laptop. The condition of the laptop would then be of prime importance to determine whether a) rescission is at all possible and b) whether the buyer must also pay for the devaluation of the machine.

6. I wonder how one would prove that the misrepresentation in this case was innocent. The buyer goes to a web site clearly labeled IBM Employee Purchase Program. The buyer then proceeds to enter the last name of someone else and that person's serial number. Now, it seems to me that in this day and age, the normal assumption when logging onto a web site with a name and password (or serial number or what have you) is that I'm telling the system at the other end that I'm that person.

7. It is true that if it can be proven that Lenovo knew that there was misrepresentation in a specific case and did not do anything about it, it can weaken their case. But note what has to be done:

a. It must be proven that Lenovo knew.
b. It must be proven when Lenovo knew it for sure. Mere suspicion is not enough.
c. It has to be proven for a specific contract. (Saying that Lenovo knew that in general there were problems with the EPP program is not enough. It has to be demonstrated that Lenovo knew that a specific purchase was done with misrepresentation.)

This is complicated by the fact that IBM and Lenovo are now two different companies. I can easily see how Lenovo could flag a flurry of purchases on a specific employee as suspicious but they cannot immediately legally act unless they have proof that there was actual abuse. IBM would investigate but it is unclear how quickly they could come back with results. If Meyer gave out his EPP to some people legitimately but then it was leaked, it might take some time for IBM to figure out in a list of 256 orders how to handle each case. They would also want to really know what Meyer's involvement with this is. Was he careless? Did he do or say something that cause the situation? Basically, they don't want to go back prematurely to Lenovo and say "pull the plug!" before they know who is to blame. If they find that Meyer acted inappropriately, they cannot legally do anything against the buyers.

By the way, what I just said explains why we have inconsistent reports of what happened in the past with EPP deals. Think of two scenarios.

A) Joe User works at IBM. He gives his EPP to his best friend, Jim Gui. (Joe followed the conditions of the EPP to the letter. So he did everything right.) Two months latter Jim and Joe have a big fight and become bitter enemies. In retaliation, Jim decides to leak Joe's EPP to the web hoping that Joe will be fired or fined or something. In this case, there are probably grounds for a criminal case against Jim (but I'm not sure and I don't want to research that) and Lenovo can still argue that the buyers misrepresented themselves when they used the EPP login. The fact that it is Jim who leaked the information has no bearing on the issue of misrepresentation. The legal argument would be that going to a site clearly labeled as EPP and using someone else's name and serial are actions that amount misrepresentation.

B) Joe User has just been hired by IBM. He finds out about the EPP, does not read the conditions, gets excited and post his name and serial on 3 bulletin boards. IBM finds out that Joe posted the information willingly to people who should not have benefited from the EPP. IBM has a case against Joe. However, nobody has a case against the people who used the information that was posted by Joe. Joe is an IBM employee and therefore is a representative of that company.

There are gray areas between A) and B) but these illustrate the two ends of the spectrum. In one case, the buyers are liable and in the second case, they are not. It all depends on how the information got out of IBM. The upshot of this is that if someone says "I used the EPP three years ago from someone I did not know and IBM did not blink when I used my warranty" that proves nothing about the outcome of the Meyer case.

8. By the by, if the transactions with the Meyer serial end up being contested, they would most likely end up in arbitration, not in court. Fights over warranties, for instance, are usually deal with in arbitration. This is most often spelled out in the warranty but I think (I'm not sure about this) that it is a general requirement of warranties in the US. Arbitrations are final and cannot be appealed. While courts can mess with the decisions of arbitrators they are very reluctant to do so and will do it only under extraordinary circumstances, like if the arbitrator grossly misapplied the law.

 

Well, first it's just poor taste/judgment to "quote" someone and edit the quote. You are not quoting them - regardless of how pretty you make it look.

Second, yes it is possible to show that you intended to defraud by logging in as another user or by using that person's identity to obtain a benefit to which you are not entitled. In California, anyway, it's called identity theft.

Third, Lenovo isn't likely to make a big deal out of this. Otherwise, they look like major record labels and DRM.

Laws do change based on public behavior. I'm not at all trying to say that any of this is wrong or right. Only saying that the folks who do this may be taking a risk and they should understand that.

And mygodinheaven I don't care if "Andrew did it". With all due respect to Andrew, doing something because someone else did it is one of the poorest reasons for doing anything.

 

Lets take your logic and properly apply it in lenovos case: The Thinkpad machine is not a Walmart blue light special akin to a $400 Everex. The Thinkpad itself has brand appeal as a professional business machine, that users are accustomed to paying a premium for. Since Lenovo started branding their own machines, the Thinkpad line became the foundation of the company iteself. If EPP pricing becomes the norm, and granted it's not a 50% discount, 15% is still significant; then you nor I would ever feel comfortable paying the premium price again. People would also never shop the lower line of Lenovo branded machines, as the prices between models would become negligible. A flood of used/new machines on ebay at a large discounts doesnt help their image in both direct and retail sales as well. So back to your logic, Lenovo making a few hundred sales, in a smash and grab is NOT in their big picture interest.

 

I'm neither a lawyer or a participant in the Meyers EPP situation. But I would think that anyone who was able to purchase an extended warrantee through this program would have a pretty strong case against Lenovo if they were denied coverage when something went wrong during the warrantee period. Regardless of whether there was "misrepresentation" at the time of purchase.

If Lenovo's policy is to deny coverage if there was any misreprentation, they would certainly have some obligation to make a reasonable effort to confirm the validity of the order before charging the buyer's credit card for the extended warrantee. With the current long shipping delays for products, Lenovo has ample time to do so. All they need to do is check with the employee whose name was used.

On top of that, if they have knowledge that purchases made on this employeee's account will not be covered by the extended warrantees for which they have accepted payment, they would certainly seem to have an obligation to cancel the warrantee and refund the prorated amount of $$$ for the cancelled service contract. If their policy is to do nothing until the buyer seeks service under the extended warrantee, I would think they would have a big problem.

Do you think that Lenovo has no obligation at all when they accept payment for a service contract? Would it not be fraud on their part to red-flag these accounts; sit on the $$$ that was paid for the extended warrantee; then suddenly "discover" the buyer's misrepresentation only when they bring the unit in for service?

Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Lenovo knowingly and willfully created a situation where they accepted money for a service which they had no intent of fulfilling?

In addition, I would think that IBM/Lenovo's past policy on use of the EPP would be very relevant to the case. If significant numbers of purchases against a single employee's account were allowed to go through in the past, they should be expected to be aware of the fact that an employee's name/code could be made public. If they have a problem with this, it would have been very easy to make adjustments to the EPP to prevent this.

A person considering purchasing through this public employee ID would most likely have read that people have routinely done this in the past without problem. Lenovo's behavior very well may have contributed to the impression that this was one of those things that " technically might not be entirely legal...but they don't really seem to care".

Face it, there are situations like this every single day. For example, pretty much every time you register on a website or install a program, a box full of legalese pops up . How many people actually take the time to scroll through and actually read it before clicking the "I have read and agree to the terms" button? So is that fraud as well?

 

I think that point would be more valid if the time between ordering and shipping were measured in days rather than months.

In any event, if Lenovo was offering this program to employees of IBM, shouldn't the 2 companies be expected to have a process in place to verify the validity of the employee purchase? How hard can that be?

 

Because there is the possibility of criminal charges if the information was stolen somehow, IBM needs to proceed with an abundance of caution. If they come to the incorrect conclusion prematurely they are open to liabilities from the employees involved, from Lenovo and possibly from the buyers.

 

I ordered a T61 the day Meyer's info was made public. I canceled my order two days later due to concerns of having my warranty voided. With all this speculation on the Meyer EPP situation, I decided to clarify with Lenovo via email.

I asked specifically about Meyer's serial #, which I have edited out in Lenovo's response below.

Lenovo's response:

Thank you for contacting Lenovo, the makers of ThinkPad and ThinkCentre products!

The EPP program was set up for IBM/ Lenovo employees and their family and friends. Although it
is legal to use the employee name and serial number, they should not be used without permission
from the employee and we have been informed he did not grant permission for this.

The EPP Terms and Conditions limit the number of purchases that can be made with any one serial
number in a calendar year. If an employee's number is abused by persons the employee is not
acquainted with, it denies the employee of the ability to share with family and friends.

We have blocked certain serial numbers from the ability to purchase due to the abuse of the program.
Although it is possible for you to place an order on our EPP site with the number XXXXXX, the order will
not be cleared to ship

If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-426-3675
or you may reply to this e-mail.

Once again thank you for contacting Lenovo.


Sincerely,

USEPP Operations
www.lenovo.com/epp/us

 

That makes their stance pretty clear, so are they going to just sit on Meyers orders? It still doenst confirm that they actually know WHO placed these orders, or like Lemur said, they are taking their time to investigate, then cancel them all (before shipping anything).

 

Just to clarify, although I do think the content of my last few posts are possible, my position has always been that the most likely outcome would be they'd cancel the orders. Here's my first post on the topic (from the original thread):

What really annoyed me was when people expressing doubts about the validity of the transaction or the possibility of ending up in an undesirable situation (laptop but no warranty) were summarily dismissed. I think they have good reasons to worry that the deal they thought they were getting would not come to fruition.

Before somebody asks... If I think the most likely outcome would be a cancellation, then why did spend so much time talking about warranties? Because although I think this is a less likely option, I have no reason to disbelieve the report from SkiBunny, who as an IBM employee seems well placed to tell us what has happened in the past when people abused the EPP. Rather than summarily dismiss SkiBunny, I tried to see how the warranty could be voided.

 

damn that sucks then. i'll still hold out until my shipping date...then i guess i'll figure out what to do from there.

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

I'm sorry, but you can't forget that Lenovo does not make it clear what exactly you are claiming to be when you log into EPP. You can log into SPP but not be a shareholder- the lack of usage of a name doesn't make much difference because the website is "clearly labeled Lenovo Shareholder Purchase Program. Why make those assumptions? For instance, it is conceivable that a certain coupon-code-activated deal could involve the entering of the last name of the employee who started the deal. I'm not saying that that is necessarily true in the Meyer case, I'm showing you that these assumptions don't hold up without the fine print to support them. I agree completely that misrepresentation violates contract law, but nowhere are the grounds of misrepresentation defined.

As if it wasn't explained enough -- this the second time I've said this as a reply to you --, using EPP is not identity theft because you don't have to be the actual employee to use it. At worst, you are posing as the employee's friend (but the grounds of misrepresentation are still hazy at best). Should I explain that again?

Using EPP is not identity theft because you don't have to be the actual employee to use it. At worst, you are posing as the employee's friend (but the grounds of misrepresentation are still hazy at best). (third time)

Finally, the message in my sig is just a joke about how some people idolize (possibly) the founder of this website. I don't actually believe Andrew doing means we all should do it. Calm down. Yourgodinheaven isn't nearly as irritable as you are.

 

With all due respect to you, you do not need to repeat things. I do understand what people write, but occasionally miss a post in a thread this long. I apologize if I've twisted your bloomers. And, now, for your reading pleasure, the Terms and Conditions of Lenovo/IBM's EPP (emphasis added) (link if you want it: http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_eppus/en_US/terms.html):

Depending on how this information was made available, the orders could be invalidated and it could, indeed, be construed as identity theft.

Whether you like that or not is, again, irrelevant. It depends on the circumstances and interpretation of the applicable law by Lenovo/IBM's lawyers. Are they likely to come after everyone for ID theft? No. Could they consider it a misuse of the program and cancel the orders? Possibly.

Sorry if this is ruffling feathers. It's not the intent. However, contract law governs many of the things we do every day.

And, I'll keep my cranky pants on thankyouverymuch (if indeed they are on). It's really irritating when someone reads my emotion into a non-emotional post.

 

^Yeah, here's the other thing I mentioned in my first post in this thread (emphasis added), whether you like it or not, and I'll repeat it for your reading pleasure. IBM shows the EPP contract on the IBM site when you try to log into EPP. Lenovo does not show a EPP contract when you try to log into EPP. The applicable agreement was never presented in the checkout process. It would be absurd to hold someone legally responsible for something that isn't even on your website. Lastly, the terms and conditions you posted expressly concern IBM products - nothing was ever mentioned about Lenovo.

And for the fourth time, it isn't identity theft if you aren't stealing anyone's identity. You are not necessarily pretending to be Meyer, at worst you are pretending to be his friend.