It’s important for people to know their rights and retailers should just offer refunds on requests based on basic consumer protection laws. Australia has particularly stringent consumer laws, and New York and California at least in the US seem to have strong ones. I’ve never understood why people don’t exercise these consumer rights and want to encourage people to do so. A product has been sold that can not do what was advertised - that should be instant refund, no need for lawyers.
Each individual or company should do whatever they deem necessary. My statement was to the effect of posting 'potential action' on a forum would hinder that process, nobody here to my knowledge is equipped to give unsolicited legal advice, and generally causes a endless discussion and copy-paste regulations and other unreal things. I'm sure anyone whom sued or been sued by anyone you'd know how messy it can all get. - Now engaging government bodies of variable states again has it's problems. Ranting into a forum of I'm going to sue and call the AG or the FTC is not actually doing any of those things, it's threatening to do them and announcing. Any council will tell you after the fact that you should not have done that.
This may not entirely be a theoretical discussion because, as you have said, cases are usually settled on an individual basis.
For this forum it is, as we will never know the outcomes, these settle with a stip. on non-disclosure.
Now I would be very interested in broken down URSA bodies to play around with, though I’m more interested in the FGPA than the turent these days, and I’d actually like hook up the screen to another camera :p
If you know how. I've spent decades in various disciplines, sometimes it's not easy to get components that don't cost an arm and a leg.
Depends on jurisdiction, but by most definitions it is a consumer product and is/was easily purchasable by general consumers. Often it’s defined by dollar value and the URSA is cheaper than all of household appliances. I can tell for a fact it is covered by Australian consumer law (which has blanket coverage on goods and services priced less than $40k) plus “A person is still defined as a "consumer" if the good was acquired for purposes of re-supply or for the purpose of using or transforming it in trade or commerce”
Dear god, I am doing this.... This was not a breach of contract. BM did not breach a contract with the user to supply them a 4.6k turret. Now to raise any other legal action you need to show actual damages arising from not being supplied the damn thing, negligence, ill will, plaintiffs and defendants consistent behavior, prior requests to be made whole and the like.
I just think it's bad form (the soup I am in now myself) to post public adverts of theoretical legal problems in a given jurisdiction to a company. Further having a fruitless discussion - which will just yield more such discussions.
It works like this, if in theory BM get's fined by the FTC or NY AG $50,000 for not making the damn Turret available for sale, Show me the URSA owner that will be happy and made whole with this? For them it will be cost of doing business, for the URSA owner it will be the same 4K Turret.
This venue here is probably the worst venue to discuss this kind of stuff! Conflating the moral hazard with liability is silly. I know people are mad about this. But all this is definitely reaching, and if it's not reaching then people would know better to do this on the D/L.