5 Oct
2011
5 Oct
'11
8:11 p.m.
I wrote:
If an auction listing has a picture, and the picture
isn't the actual
item,
there should be an explicit statement of that fact.
William Donzelli wrote:
No, there is no requirement for this, nor does there
need to be. There
is plenty of legal precedence with Implied Warranties (in the US,
anyway).
As long as any variations are insignificant (the UCC
calls it
"standard tolerances" or something), everything is legal and above the
table.
Think of the legal mess there would be if this was not
the case.
Who is to say what variations are "insignificant"?
"Standard tolerances" doesn't cover a lot of the variations between
photos and actual items I've seen. For instance, I just bought some
chips. The seller had two different lots of chips with the same base
part number. For one, the photo showed chips marked ES (Engineering
Sample), which means that they were not qualified for production use.
The other lot had chips without the ES marking. I specifically
purchased the lot of chips without the ES marking. What actually
arrived is chips with the ES marking, although they aren't the specific
chips pictured in either auction lot. Are you going to tell me that
this is "standard tolerances"?