Gene Kochanowsky wrote:Good luck with that. BM sold you a working camera with a warranty. If it didn't meet the warranty then you should have sent it back for repair, replacement or refund. But I'll bet that warranty says nothing about the availability of future turrets.
Gene, I think you are missing the point. Warranty has nothing to do with this. The law states that false advertising is fraudulent... meaning if you advertised a FOR SALE ITEM publicly that says it is "USER UPGRADABLE" with a post from Grant that says they are still working on it (meaning the turret) and telling his customers that if you need 4.6K now you can get the UMP based on a Loyalty program, this are statement of facts that legally puts BMD confirming that their advertisement regarding upgradability of the camera is TRUE. If they cannot fulfill this, then they should state in a press release and offer compensation. Otherwise in the United States of America, this is called FALSE ADVERTISING and customers has recourse.
If this is hard for you to comprehend, here is a simple example. You are manufacturing and marketing a pair of binoculars. In your magazine advertisement, your ad states that your binoculars is upgradable with an upcoming replaceable lens that has X-Ray vision. Regardless of wether the customer is an idiot for believing your ad, he or she buys the binocular. Two years past you have not delivered the replaceable lens with X-Ray vision. That customer can claim your advertisement is false and thereby the sale cannot be consummated. The court will have the manufacturer refund the customer for money paid on the binoculars. This puts the burden on the vendor so that there are no precedence on committing fraud through false advertising. If you still don't get this, ask a lawyer.
It will not be hard to have a lawyer file a class action on this. They'll make good money and unfortunately put a lot of financial burden on BMD, money that will take away from their R&D and operations. I'm not for it since I want my BMD products when I can afford them in time or need them. But if someone out here is so pissed and really want to make a difference, go call a lawyer. Save a copy of Grant's post about the URSA Turret before they take it down. That's evidence. Also, find ads on the URSA from way before with remarks about "Upgradability" and "Turret options". I'm done whining here because this will not get anywhere and I've got better things to do. But if there is a lawsuit and it gets traction towards URSA current owner advantage, then I see good in it for me. I'm just a voice of reason and advocating the customer's cause. Best of luck to you who will take the challenge!