On Thursday 27 July 2006 17:42, David Guest wrote: > Whether insisting on a formal public retraction is beneficial for > growing the AMH market is perhaps a more interesting question. Payment > by installment is used for thousands of products by millions of > Australians. However, like Thinus, it is not a model that appeals to me.
Whether a long term subscription agreement is desirable or not is not the issue. The issue is that many people looking at the web site (me, Thinus, Hugh and others who have posted) have the clear and unambiguous impression that you buy a product with a single payment. The web site does nowhere point it out that you are entering a 3 year subscription contract - unless you scroll through hundreds of lines of small print, and there it is pretty much at the bottom after the said hundreds of lines of legalese most people never read As we pointed out, such business practice is either a mistake (wrongful advertising by mistake) - which is fine as long it gets corrected when pointed out, we all make mistakes or it is deliberation (wrongful advertising in order to deceive customers into paying more than they anticipated) In either case, a customer has a right to inform other potential customers not to fall into the same trap. The moment I receive anything from them requesting me to retract anything is the moment I will ring Office of Fair Trade, consumers association, a solicitor, and a variety of medical and consumer rights publications but I will not retract anything I said about this matter. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
