Actinic Resellers

[Darren B]

OK

Question for you resellers and Actinic

Going on the problems found in various versions of V9, and others if you like.

If a reseller sold the software to a client, be it a new version upgrade or what ever and it was found to be not suitable, for example the stock control was all screwed this would surely mean the version was not fit for purpose, it does not do what it says e.t.c

i am only raising a question here, who is responsible when the client demands a refund. I am no law graduate but i would assume that you can not refuse the refund, different if the product was as described, but if it does not work then?

does the issue then get passed to actinic, does actinic and your client enter into discussions to resolve the issues. Does actinic support the reseller, will actinic support the reseller if a client makes a legal challange against them, or will they walk away from it.

just thought i would ask
D

[garry]

refund

Going by a microwave oven I sold that went wrong after 8 months.
I gave the customer a full refund had to fight it out with Samsung to get my refund.
I.e. not fit for purpose of use figure same sort of thing. if you think the customer has a reasonable complaint I think you have to fight the case for them.
Got to do what it says on the can. (I think actinic is responsible at the end of the day to refund you)
Garry
www.jaytrade.co.uk

[Duncan Rounding]

Can't see Actinic software being any different than any other supplier. Generally if you sold it you are responsible for the sale/refund to your customer. The arrangement you may have with your suppliers is between you and them and has nothing to do with the customer/end user.

[jont]

if a client makes a legal challenge against them

You essentially sign your life away in legal-ease when you install and agree to the terms (the small print actually allows the killing of kittens) so getting anywhere would be very difficult and would typically be resolved by a full refund etc prior to that.

Resellers typically copy and paste the Actinic blurb from their website which is the safe and sensible thing to do - if something is promised and it is not available the resellers has additional recourse ... if the resellers makes up their own stuff and it is wrong they are nadged.

[pinbrook]

it was found to be not suitable, for example the stock control was all screwed this would surely mean the version was not fit for purpose, it does not do what it says e.t.c

Before you sell you should discuss this with the purchaser - or at least have a list of features easily available.

the example you give ie stock control - wouldn't be classed as not fit for purpose as actinic makes no claim for having stock control.

The responsibility is probably with the purchaser to check actinic fits their purpose prior to buying. The decision is probably yours whether to refund if the purchaser finds it doesn't do everything they want.

i agree with Duncan the contract is between you and the purchaser.

Essentially as a reseller you buy from actinic at a discount, this discount is your payment for dealing with the purchaser.

[jont]

at least have a list of features easily available

Thats the beauty of the free 30 day trial to establish suitability before purchase.

[Darren B]

the example you give ie stock control - wouldn't be classed as not fit for purpose as actinic makes no claim for having stock control.

Ok it was an example, poor but an example, stock monitoring or stock something, but its still shagged but thats not the issue here, i used it as an off the top of my head example, not a good one i add.

That's the beauty of the free 30 day trial to establish suitability before purchase.

That's a very good point, i have no understanding how selling software or digital media works and was curious.

i guess the question is, what really constitutes not fit for purpose, i guess providing, as stated in this thread, you dont lie or miss lead what the product does then you pays your money and takes your chances.

i have never looked at the 30 day trial in this way, i guess its the biggest saving grace against n00bs

making people have a hard copy would be even better then as soon as they open it, then thats it

thanks for the comments, i was merely asking following a discussion i have been having elsewhere.

D

[TraceyHand]

i have never looked at the 30 day trial in this way, i guess its the biggest saving grace against n00bs

hmmmmm..maybe

[Chris Curness]

The term "Not fit for purpose" has very much a bearing in the resale of a product such as software like V9 particularly when used as an upgrade.
The assumption of the purchaser that an "upgrade" is an enhancement of the original can be of an acceptable nature that In addition to it being an express term of a contract that the (item) would be suitable for a particular need. Implied into a contract under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) are certain statutory rights. In particular goods should be of a satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for the purpose(s) that goods of that particular kind are commonly purchased including any particular purpose asked for by a buyer.
Meaning that an upgrade should have all the functional features of the previous version plus an addition / additional features that deem it an upgrade and not a "New" product.
Software developers should be particularly aware not to offer a product as an "upgrade" that is deemed too removed from the previous version as this leads to the seller, be it the manufacturer or the reseller, to capitalise on the already existing market (previous version) and not make the effort to develop a market for a "New" product.
Basically the risk is selling a "nearly new" product to an existing market by calling it an upgrade in an effort to save taking the risk on the unknown "new market" therefore leaving the seller open to the "Not fit for purpose" claim. Stating that patches or versions are available or pending hold no legal water when comparisons are made in a like for like scenario...We all clear on that then?

[RuralWeb]

The assumption of the purchaser that an "upgrade" is an enhancement of the original

I dont think you can class V9 as an upgrade in the terms you describe. V9 is a completely new version of the software and as such does not really IMO have to "upgrade" the features of V8 at all.

If you have V8 and "upgrades" are issued by Actinic to V8 then you can reasonably expect them to enhance the functionality of the product BUT when a new version is released then you buy it based on the features of the new product not the features of the previous version.

The fact that V9 contains an upgrader function is simply a term used to describe the method used to convert a website from one version to the other - it does not imply that "upgrading" will always improve functionality from V8 to V9 as they are different.

[leehack]

The term "Not fit for purpose" has very much a bearing in the resale of a product such as software like V9 particularly when used as an upgrade.
The assumption of the purchaser that an "upgrade" is an enhancement of the original can be of an acceptable nature that In addition to it being an express term of a contract that the (item) would be suitable for a particular need. Implied into a contract under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) are certain statutory rights. In particular goods should be of a satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for the purpose(s) that goods of that particular kind are commonly purchased including any particular purpose asked for by a buyer.
Meaning that an upgrade should have all the functional features of the previous version plus an addition / additional features that deem it an upgrade and not a "New" product.
Software developers should be particularly aware not to offer a product as an "upgrade" that is deemed too removed from the previous version as this leads to the seller, be it the manufacturer or the reseller, to capitalise on the already existing market (previous version) and not make the effort to develop a market for a "New" product.
Basically the risk is selling a "nearly new" product to an existing market by calling it an upgrade in an effort to save taking the risk on the unknown "new market" therefore leaving the seller open to the "Not fit for purpose" claim. Stating that patches or versions are available or pending hold no legal water when comparisons are made in a like for like scenario...We all clear on that then?

This is a very one sided way of looking at the issue IMO, which although i can appreciate, does not really give a rounded view of things. Let's take your situation for example, you have far more products than is recommended in your store, so any performance issues you experience could be blamed solely on you and your choice to go outside of the guidelines? It appears to me that you've entered a Fiat Punto into a car race and you are now unhappy that you didn't win and want your money back.

The car company advise you that a Fiat Punto is not made to race (if you read the specs), they also provide you with a free 30 day trial to test it to make sure for yourself and the decision to upgrade and contact a designer was solely your choice. Can you appreciate that from a different angle of looking at things, you have made incorrect decisions along the way? It's all too easy to point fingers or throw toys, sometimes you have to take things on the chin and learn from your own mistakes too.

IMO if a designer sells you software and you want a refund on the grounds of performance issues, then i think the software company is who you should deal with. They provide the license key and the ones who would enforce something if you went outside these rules. The designer is just a go between, I don't think a software company can abandon a designer when the proverbial hits, that's bad IMO. If customer gets a refund, then the designer should not make any money from the transaction and should get a chargeback direct from the software company IMO.

[Darren B]

We all clear on that then?

`

That's exactly what i thought

All said and done i can see were this legislation is leading, well in my little world i can see something anyway. So V9 is a new piece of software, compared to V8, but V9.0.3 will be an upgrade to V9. So the upgrade is merely ment to be enhancements and a version change can be seen as a new piece of software which you take you choice with the new versions.

back to the free trials me thinks - best idea ever

[Darren B]

It appears to me that you've entered a Fiat Punto into a car race and you are now unhappy that you didn't win and want your money back.

Hmm nice example, interesting choice of car as well

[jont]

that goods of that particular kind are commonly purchased including any particular purpose asked for by a buyer.

If you did indeed ask a specific question and you were misinformed then you have rights as the item was mis sold as you would with any product purchased.

[Darren B]

ermmmmmmm i skipped this line, looked like something written by me