tomjtx wrote: > Robin Bowes;169661 Wrote: >> >> "no risk" is actually not the same as "no cost" >> >> "no risk" means that the vendor guarantees to accept the unit back from >> you. >> >> "no cost" means that the vendor will not charge you anything. > > Robin, that is certainly a valid point and I suspect that is the kind > of fine distinction that could be made legally. > But from an ethical POV I find it hard to interpret BC's copy as other > than misleading.
I agree entirely. I too would read "no risk" as "no risk of it costing me anything" and think that advertising the scheme as "no risk" whilst costing 5% is not good. R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
