|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know the answer. There might not
be one until such time as a case actually was litigated.
My feeling is, I may know about the problem (in some esoteric sense) but
not think it's going to affect me. Then, in the middle of a large
intraday position, "I go blind." All of this while using a product that
the publisher maintains is suitable for the task and has collected $2000
for. The presumed liability might be worsened if it were shown that the
manufacturer knew about the problem but didn't fix it.
Regardless of what disclaimers there are on shrink-wrapped packages,
these is an implied warranty of fitness when such products are targeted
for and sold into markets.
If I were an insurer providing liability coverage for such a firm, I
don't think I'd be happy about that.
Allan
__________________________________________
greene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> The normal rule of thumb is a product is defective if it's not reasonably
> suitable for its intended use. I'm not a day trader - but any program that
> would wipe out large chunks of my database without asking me first sounds
> pretty defective to me <g>. OTOH - since you know about the problem - it
> probably wouldn't be a great lawsuit if you tried to claim a trading loss
> (depending on what state you live in - I assume you live in the US - there'd
> be issues of comparative negligence). On the third hand - I think you'd have
> a much better case if all you were seeking was a refund for the price you paid
> for the program.
>
> BTW - I have no particular ax to grind when it comes to Omega. I just resent
> spending a lot of money for any software that doesn't work properly (and most
> software manufacturers don't seem to have any compunctions about bringing
> products which are basically beta versions to market). Robyn
>
> Allan L. Kaminsky wrote:
>
> > Well written letter. Hope you get a rational response.
> >
> > Kind of makes you wonder about product liability. A product sold for the
> > express purpose of trading is unable to protect the user from common
> > occurrences (not unforeseen acts of nature). Is there product liability
> > if the user then suffers losses as a result of the poor engineering of
> > the product? In many other areas, the manufacturer would be at great
> > risk (aircraft manufacturers, etc.).>>
|