Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Timothy Daniels, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Timothy Daniels, Feb 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Timothy Daniels

    RRR_News Guest

    It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
    "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
    tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
    charlatans.

    --

    Rich/rerat

    (RRR News) <message rule>
    <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



    Dell is involved in a class action suit for
    "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
    switched parts and charged her for the more
    expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
    for which no one qualifies and then charges
    ridiculously high interest rates.

    http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/

    http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html

    *TimDaniels*
     
    RRR_News, Feb 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. i agree that the buyer probably didn't read the credit terms to find
    themselves with an unexpected rate... i always see that "for qualified
    customers" in all of their advertisements that probably releases them of any
    wrong doing... but i also believe in the court systems so let it take its
    course and see what happens. the only tort reform that i think should be
    done is to cap fees that lawyers are allowed to extract for class action
    suits. i feel that there is a valuable public service that comes from class
    actions suits which is to keep companies on the straight and narrow so that
    they avoid such actions... but from a monetary perspective the only real
    winners from class actions are the lawyers. i remember once receiving a
    fifty cent check in an envelope with postage of at least half that amount
    for the great 17" monitor class action suit.
     
    Christopher Muto, Feb 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    Then there was the class action suit against Gateway brought by some
    Philadelphia lawyers a number of years ago. Gateway advertised and stickered
    many of its 486 computers as "Pentium Ready", meaning that a special Type 3 ZIF
    socket Pentium OverDrive could be installed and run.

    Micronics designed the motherboards used by Gateway, and the basis of the design
    was a prototype Pentium OverDrive with an internal write-through cache, a more
    conservative cache design. Then Intel changed the Pentium OverDrive, and the
    final version had a write-BACK cache. When installed in a Gateway system, the
    chip ran slower than slow, maybe about as fast as an IBM AT, and bus-mastering
    devices like NICs and SCSI cards refused to work.

    So the lawyers sued Gateway, and the settlement approved by the judge consisted
    of megabucks for the lawyers and coupons to owners of Gateway 486 computers.
    The coupon was good for $50 off on the purchase of a Pentium OverDrive processor
    from Gateway, at its usual inflated prices !!! So, let's see. What does a
    discount coupon for a processor I can't use in my system do for me? I wonder
    how many people gleefully cashed in their coupons and bought Pentium OverDrives
    from Gateway.

    Intel eventually compensated by making available an "interposer", a little
    socketed thingie installed between the Pentium OverDrive and the ZIF socket.
    The sole purpose of the interposer was to raise a signal on the CPU to force its
    cache to operate in the write-thru mode which was compatible with most ZIF
    Socket 3 486 motherboards.

    Needless to say, this was the least successful "OverDrive" CPU ever done by
    Intel. The 486-DX4 OverDrive was OK, as were several Socket 5 Pentium
    OverDrives and the Socket 8 Pentium Pro OverDrive. Finally Intel gave up on
    OverDrives... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Feb 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Timothy Daniels

    Nascar12 Guest

    Believe it or not there are companies that go over the line and need to be
    hit with a stick called a law suit. It seems the fear of law suits is the
    only thing that keeps some of these crooked companies in line. The
    government sure doesn't have the resources or desire to pursue them so it's
    left to the private sector to protect themselves. Lawyers are bounty
    hunters of sorts. BTW, I hate lawyers but there are times that they are
    useful. Some are sleazebags but that can be said of most professions.
    There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
     
    Nascar12, Feb 28, 2005
    #5

  6. I agree.

    *TimDaniels*
     
    Timothy Daniels, Feb 28, 2005
    #6
  7. Timothy Daniels

    Jerry Park Guest

    The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.

    Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.

    If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
    making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
    the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
    similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
    market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
    protection from class action.

    All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
     
    Jerry Park, Feb 28, 2005
    #7
  8. Timothy Daniels

    GB Guest

    The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
    any other country. That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

    Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
    making work for themselves.
     
    GB, Feb 28, 2005
    #8

  9. Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
    still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
    don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
    consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
    if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
    to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?

    *TimDaniels*
     
    Timothy Daniels, Feb 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Timothy Daniels

    Jerry Park Guest

    No, I don't have the resources to sue someone. If I received a bad
    product from one of the above listed companies, and the company did not
    deal appropriately with me, I'd just lose the cost of the product.

    If, however, someone filed a class action suit against the company that
    sold me a bad product, I'd still lose the cost of the product and I
    would pay more for the replacement product. You don't really think
    anyone BUT lawyers receive anything of real value from class action suits?
     
    Jerry Park, Mar 1, 2005
    #10
  11. right, and that is why i suggested (above) that the reform should be on how
    much in fees the lawyers are allowed to collect and not how much a
    complainant is allowed to receive. it is disgusting how little is paid out
    to the complainant. fees can still be attractive to the lawyers at one
    quarter of what they currently collect in such matters. fees as a ratio to
    the settlement amount can be legislated. limiting the right to sue or
    limiting the possible reward to the complainant goes against the fundamental
    principal of a free market economy.
     
    Christopher Muto, Mar 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Timothy Daniels

    Code4u Guest

    Depends how you look at it. Perhaps the payout from the suite is low,
    however, the threat of future lawsuits can keep companies honest; so
    in this sense the public can profit from the action. I think you would
    agree that it is not enough to trust big business to do the right
    thing, they are in business to make money and this means push the
    legal envelope. The Justice Department doesn't have the time to keep
    every company in line, so we rely on the trial lawyers.
     
    Code4u, Mar 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Timothy Daniels

    Jerry Park Guest

    I agree that there are 'bad' companies. But most successful companies
    want to provide a good product at a good price. They do that because it
    is good for business.

    A company that has to be 'kept in line' with the threat of a lawsuit,
    won't be 'kept in line'. They will just see the lawsuit as the cost of
    doing business.

    Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have an effect is on good
    companies who do want to do a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit
    mentality forces them to charge more for their product than they
    otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

    It hardly matters (in terms of cost) if a company wins or loses such a
    lawsuit. The cost of winning is extremely high. And everyone doing
    business with that company pays the increased cost of their product.

    Class action lawsuits do no good to the complaintants and harm everyone
    else.
     
    Jerry Park, Mar 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc....
     
    Leythos, Mar 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Timothy Daniels

    Paul Knudsen Guest

    Oh, I think the threat of big lawsuits keeps a lot of companies honest
    that wouldn't be otherwise. So, indirectly, we all do benefit.

    Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
    deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
    wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
    like that, wouldn't you?
     
    Paul Knudsen, Mar 1, 2005
    #15

  16. And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    practices.

    *TimDaniels*
     
    Timothy Daniels, Mar 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Timothy Daniels

    Jerry Park Guest

    Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...
     
    Jerry Park, Mar 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Timothy Daniels

    Jerry Park Guest

    No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
    class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
    lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
    the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.

    To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
    business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
    is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
    class action.
     
    Jerry Park, Mar 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Timothy Daniels

    GB Guest

    Some of it is daft. Like the girl who was so pleased at her pay raise that
    she hopped, skipped and jumped back to her desk. She snapped her Achilles
    Tendon on the way, so sued her employers for not protecting her properly.
    She won!
     
    GB, Mar 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    Gosh! Let's turn this thread into a debate about the Bush administration's tort
    reform proposal, which would reduce the number of class action lawsuits. Based
    on 4 years and 2 months in office, one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
    presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
    the United States... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.