Consolidated CAMO: SC REFUND?

OK. Let's try then misrepresentation. They misrepresented themselves when they offered certs for the last consolidation leading consumers to believe that future consolidations would be handled in a similar manner.
Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation

Any purchase bought by a consumer based on this would be case of misrepresentation. Each future sale would be considered a separate micro contract.

But did SOE actually state that all future similar incidents would be handled the same way? It isn't a "false statement of fact" if they didn't actually make a "statement of fact." Did they say everything like that incident would be treated that way? Did they say it was only this one time? Did they only refer to that specific incident when they announced they were making this cert grant?

I honestly don't know. I wasn't around when that cert grant happened so I don't know what they said exactly. However, I still have a strong feeling that if anyone misinterpreted that announcement to mean that cert grants would happen in the future then it is their own fault and not SOE's.

No promise was ever made at time of purchase or at time of the previous cert hand out that it would happen again. I get that some people are angry, but your GED in law isn't going to help.

They didn't need to state it because they demonstrated it in their response and nohting was mentioned that would lead others to believe that would be handled any differently in the future. Statements can be construed through past action not just words. They should have clarified in writing if this would not be the case in any future consolidations which they did not.

A sale is when new customers can buy an item at a lower cost than previously. That's absolutely Ok and no one is objecting against that.

The thing that people are questioning is your decision to implement this sale retroactively on old purchases, but only for the customers that was spending less.

Sorry. I missed anywhere in that definition the specifies a promise be made for their to be a showing of misrepresentation. Keep searching and let me know when you find to be one of the required elements for that.

Diodeone: I don't have time to go ***-for-tat with you right now (maybe in an hour or two), but I do have a question.

The question is, simply, why do you think SOE implemented this particular change the way they did?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/misrepresentation

lets try not wikipedia

pecuniary loss, now what money have you personally lost over this? did you not receive the product at the price it was stated when you bought it? did other users some how have inside information you were not privy to that resulted in them only buying one piece of camo and waiting a year? how is them handing out free product to other users you loosing money?

again, how has this resulted in a pecuniary loss to you? the only way this might be viable is if you had bought the camo just before the change.

at no time was a statement or action made by SOE that cert hands out would be business as usual, or how the prodcut would be represented in the future.

your contract was quite clear that SOE can change things like this.

SOE is not in the insurance business.

I am pleased with the new camo change, but I'm insulted that those of us that purchased more of the same camo for different slots don't get compensated (SC or certs, SOMETHING).

Got my camo bundle = I'm a happyperson.
I still spent some money on vehicle camo and I regret that , gimme my 5bucks back.

all i want is a decal for my vehicles that says "I bought camo before it was cool" in big sarcastic letters

I would be satisfied with that. No joke.

Where else in life is a company that reduces the price of an item obligated to refund everyone who paid more for that item?

They're not reducing anything. If you wanted the samo camo on a different slot, you had to pay for it.

Just gonna repost this from the patch thread:

For all those whining about the camos, lets look at it like this: SOE IS LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

Lets say I buy a gallon milk at Walmart on Sunday for $3.00. On Tuesday, a gallon of milk at Walmart is now $2.50.

Have you ever got a check in the mail from Walmart as reimbursement? No? How odd. Shouldn't we be entitled to that $0.50?

Nope. Cause that's business.

And for those of you who bought all 3 camos a few days ago, it's you're own fault. Camo bundles have been on the roadmap for some time and in the test server.

but they did reduce the price, by changing how the camo was bundled. just breathe

Before they were separate, now they are not. I'm sorry you cannot understand that.

Jeez, people, chill out.
Suggestion: Double Xp weekend?

I bought 6 of these for more then it costs for




6 like this

You still fail to understand that the camo for different slots were considered different goods, not the same.