Originally Posted by
spgaston
Sure DL spelled out the risk that they can make changes to their eligible partners, but the promotion is explicit. Nowhere does it imply that if you make an investment, the value of the investment might decline. If I buy stock I take risk that is both explicit and assumed. Nowhere does a stock prospectus say "As long as everything goes according to original plan your investment will return 150% within 2-3 months".
Point: Promo does not equal purchase of stock. Bad Analogy.
An analogy does not seek to say two situations *are* equal. It draws a comparison along logical lines. The analogy is logically valid. If not, where does it break down?
Originally Posted by
soitgoes
There are laws about such things as anti-competitive behavior, fair trade, truth in advertising, deceptive trade practices, etc.
Imagine a $100 rebate on a $500 computer. The rebate is listed as valid through 12/31, but the rebate T&C say that the terms may be changed at any time. You buy the computer on 12/1 because of the rebate. On 12/3, the company announces that they have ended the rebate. Despite the terms in their rebate, they couldn't simply say that the rebate never existed, just that it no longer exists. It existed on 12/1, and the company would be expected to honor it for purchases prior to the change in terms.
You are assuming that Delta will retroactively change terms and fail to honor them, as in your analogy. They haven't yet done this. Also, there is legal precedent dealing with intent and what is reasonable. If Delta made a mistake in allowing this page to be publicly viewable (for example, if their hosting company published it to the wrong directory by mistake or if an internal memo was distributed to reps instead of being deleted), then they might not be held legally fully liable.
Originally Posted by
smallfox
according your logic, it is totally legal for DL to say "if you register for the promo, and do X, you will get Y", and after many people jumped in (from those who transferred their SPG, to those who spent thousands of $s in transferring skymiles), DL change the term to"(even) if you register(ed) for the promo, and do/did X, you will get nothing"?
if that is legal, why not DL simply change the terms to
"if you register(ed) for the promo, we will close your skymiles account and forfeit all your miles" on 12/31? this would make perfect sense for DL to do, isn't this following the same logic?
So if "reserve the right to change the t&c" have such implications, will there be anyone going after such a potential trap at all?
Again, they haven't retroactively changed anything. It also hasn't been determined if the deal is permanently dead, or even altered. If it has been, and it was because of an error on their part, it isn't necessarily true that they must stick to the original terms. Whether or not the registration availability was in good faith or not must be considered.
Originally Posted by
Erasmus
Your last sentence is vague: Who would expect them to honor it? I would expect them to honor it according to the terms that were in effect.
First of all, I'm not talking about anyone announcing they have ended the rebate. I'm dealing only with the changing of terms of the rebate. If the terms say they may be changed, well, then the terms may be changed. Is it good PR? No. Will it generate good will? No. Is it exactly what they warned you about? Yes.
Bingo
