Personally, whenever I fly the real thing, I still regard it as one of my toys :( Al

jeffhunterI am, obviously, not supporting companies that make misleading statements about no refunds. As you say common or statute law gives rights in relation to "faulty" goods.I am pointing out that if you deal with a company that makes that sort of statement you can expect nothing but difficulties in trying to get a refund. Such companies show contempt for their customers and the law. It's even more galling because some FS developers offer a 30-day unconditional refund.I disagree with your interpretaion of St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd. As I understand it, the court held that while a computer program isn't a good in terms of the Sale of Goods Acts, which was the traditional view. However, the court held that once the software is put on a disk then together they become a good and become subject to the terms as to quality and fitness for purpose implied by the Acts.Thw EU Directive on Distance selling gives an unconditional right to a refund for goods bought over the internet. Unsealed software is excluded from this right. If you want a refund you will have to prove the software fails to meet quality and fitness for purpose standards - which, in practice, may not be easy. The Directive is implemented in indiviual EU countries. In the UK it is here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

I disagree with your interpretaion of St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd. As I understand it, the court held that while a computer program isn't a good in terms of the Sale of Goods Acts, which was the traditional view. However, the court held that once the software is put on a disk then together they become a good and become subject to the terms as to quality and fitness for purpose implied by the Acts.

mgh,Agreed.I don't rate myself as much of a commercial/trade practices lawyer, but I think we differ at all re St Albans. My reading of Glidewell J's judgement is that software per se is intangible and therefore not "goods", but if copied to disk (or some other medium) and sold, it is both tangible and moveable, and therefore becomes "goods" and subject to the SGA. Having a vendor install software onto your computer using a disk that remains in the possession of the vendor does not give rise to a claim under the SGA, rather, the common law implies a warranty as to fitness for purpose, and so the cause of action derives from the common law rather than the statute. regards,Jeff

mgh,Agreed.I don't rate myself as much of a commercial/trade practices lawyer, but I think we differ at all re St Albans. My reading of Glidewell J's judgement is that software per se is intangible and therefore not "goods", but if copied to disk (or some other medium) and sold, it is both tangible and moveable, and therefore becomes "goods" and subject to the SGA. Having a vendor install software onto your computer using a disk that remains in the possession of the vendor does not give rise to a claim under the SGA, rather, the common law implies a warranty as to fitness for purpose, and so the cause of action derives from the common law rather than the statute. regards,Jeff

JeffI'm no lawyer, but don't things get more complicated insofar as with products like these, where you've dowloadeed as opposed to bought on a disk, you never 'own' the product you've paid for? You're simply entering into an agreement which gives you, as 'end user', a license to use the software.....Does that position change the consumers' rights re 'fit for purpose' etc?Toni.

In England there is an implied warranty of fitness for purpose under common law which applies even if the Sale of Goods Act doesn't. In St Alban's etc Sir Iain Glidewell said '

Criminal law is my main field, and I'll leave intellectual property law to those who charge twice what I do, but...Transfer of ownership in the 1's and 0's is not necessary to found an action for breach of contract. The problem is that getting damages for breach of contract is a lot more complicated than getting a refund under consumer protection laws. And if you're not actually buying an item - as opposed to merely getting the right to use it - it's not covered by the TPA/SGA.I wonder why consumer law seems to lag here (and I mean "here" in Oz, as opposed to the UK or EU - about which I know next to zip). The concept of ownership of intangible property is scarcely novel. It seems odd that licensed software which is not of merchantable quality (PSS?? hello??, or Win98 :( ) should not be in the same category as any other consumer item if it's a dud: ie surrender the license for a refund. I know that piracy makes it difficult, and that MS-style activation/licensing is expensive for designers/sellers, but the prevailing philosophy in the last 30 years has been consumer protection....Anyway, let's get back to the main game, which was sledging Ariane! cheers,Jeff

It seems odd that licensed software which is not of merchantable quality (PSS?? hello??, or Win98 :( ) should not be in the same category as any other consumer item if it's a dud:

The right to refund discussed by the Distance Selling laws, is the right to get a refund without giving any special reason and without having to "prove" it's somewhat defective! It doesn't have anything to do with the product refunded having or not an acceptable quality, it's only a consumer protection that is in place because it has been decided it's usually more difficult to evaluate a product before purchasing it, basing only with text descriptions or pictures, compared to being in a shop, seeing the good first hand, asking questions, etc. A product refunded under this protection might work perfectly, but the user still has a right to return it, without giving any specific reasons.THIS right to a refund, is granted *only* for distance sales, and allows anyone to be refunded of anything, without having to produce a specific explanation, the customer simply has to state he wants to exert his refund right and he'll get it, provided he'll return the good in resellable conditions, within the time limits, and on his own expenses.From THIS (and only THIS) right to refund, computer software (among other things), is specifically excluded, if it has been unsealed. In case of digitally delivered software, I guess the common interpretation is that the activation process can be considered as being comparable to opening its shrink-wrap. Which means, the answer to the original question, which was the thread's subject, is that YES: IF a software hasn't been activated yet, it CAN be returned, because it can considered to be still "sealed".A different thing, is when someone tries to use a product which, for any reasons, doesn't work well. In this case, we are not under the Distance Selling laws anymore but it becomes a case of a product's WARRANTY, and software is not explicitely excluded from standard warranties.However, the real issue, in case of a product's warranty, is how one defines "not working". Software is particularly tricky in this case: is not working because the user installed on a system that had issues or because conflict with other products installed ? Or, is not working because it was marketed with defects so obvious, that rendered the product almost unusable on basically every system ? If a software manufacturer can easily prove the product works as advertized on a cleanly installed test system and this can be replicated by anyone (even in an hypotechical court), it would be difficult for an end user to claim the product is unfit for purpose.BUT, to remain close to the thread's subject: if the issue was with the activation itself, and a problem in the software resulted in the inability to activate, there wouldn't be any need to prove the bug: since it was the bug itself that prevented the "seal" to be broken, the matter would fall again into the first case of returning a software which is still sealed, which is a right granted by law in any case.Note that, I'm only discussing the law from an EU perspective, can't comment on other systems.