Apparently the license for a software purchase is an optional add-on

I’m fairly irritated right now. After buying a used copy of the SAM 2003 Microsoft Office assesment software from an merchant, I installed it to find that the software key had already been used, and cannot be used more than once. The person who sold it to me is refusing to refund my money on the grounds that I should have known better. Behold:

Re: the product listed here

order number such and such

After receiving the institutional code today that would allow me to use the software, I installed it and was informed that the key for the software has already been used. Attached is a screenshot to this effect. As such, the software is unusable by anyone but the original purchaser and I am requesting a refund. I will be happy to ship the product back to you in the condition that I received it.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Polite, straightforward, reasonable. I received this reply:

You are correct that the key-code cannot be used more than once, but if someone already had a key-code or SAM account than the software being used is not a problem. The product was very clearly being sold as used, and many Microsoft products have codes that can only be used a couple of times. As the buyer, it is your responsibility to research the product you are buying beforehand. Because the software is not only usable to the original owner, I do not think a refund is called for.*

Polite, and straightforward. Reasonable, no.

Apparently when I buy software that clearly states it has a non-transferrable single user license right on the package, and again during the installation process, it’s okay to just go ahead and sell the discs without a license. If the person to whom I sell it is foolish enough to assume that a piece of software includes the ability to use that software, well, sucks for him. He should have known better. Can’t he see the notice on the software package? Well, he will when it arrives at his house, and I’ve already got the money at that point. Hey, I just realized I have tons of software lying around here that I’ve been using for years… I could sell all of it! After all, I’m advertising the software, not the license, so that makes it okay!
It’s my responsibility to ensure that the product I’m purchasing isn’t actually a pair of shiny coasters? I’m afraid we are in disagreement. What exactly did you think I was purchasing the product for, decoration? I know the product was marked as used, but the fact that it was for sale in the first place was indication enough for me that I would be able to register it. Your statement that it is my responsibility to research the product before purchasing is correct; that is exactly the purpose of the product listing. Your comparison to Microsoft products is irrelevant. The software is in fact unregisterable by anyone but the original owner, and it states as much after the institutional code is entered. I’m no more obligated to make sure a seller isn’t selling me a pair of worthless discs than I am to make sure the books I order aren’t printed in invisible ink; if there were any restrictions on the use of this product they should have been stated in the listing. Thus, I believe a refund is in fact called for.*

The thing that bugs me about this is that I’ll never see that money back. If anyone’s going to get me a refund it’s Amazon, and I’m sure they’ll get me on some technicality having to do with the time that it took me to notify the seller or some such nonsense. I just can’t believe this person would have the balls to sell me something knowing it’s useless. I said in the email above that the very fact that it was for sale was sufficient evidence for me that it would be useable. Maybe that’s not true anymore, and I really do need to take the buyer’s paranoia to that extreme when shopping on the Internet. It sure is a bummer to think about.

First, open a dispute with Amazon for the user misrepresenting the merchandise.

I see you also have the option to be the first person to review that particular item.

I’d inform Microsoft as well.

IANAL but isn’t it basically Piracy if he sells the disks without transfering the licence to use it ?

It isn’t a Microsoft product. It is a course made by Course Technology, so they are the ones you should contact, not Microsoft.

How did you pay? If you used a credit card or PayPal you can dispute the charge with them.

I’m going to give her 24 hours from the time I sent that last email before I open a claim with Amazon. I’ll need to demonstrate that we’re unable to settle the dispute before they’ll get involved, and I need her to either ignore me or tell me to piss off one more time before I do that.

It was an Marketplace purchase, so my card was charged by Amazon, not the seller. They would also issue the refund, I believe.

I don’t know if I’d call it piracy–I have the original discs, in the original packaging, and the software has probably been uninstalled from the original machine since you need the discs to run the program. No duplicates have been made, although selling the software without the license is almost certainly against the terms of use (which I’m not going to read, because I don’t care either way.) What I would call it is downright shitty, and I don’t need a ten page EULA to tell me that. I suppose some sellers do. :frowning:

I’m actually straining to think of some reason to pit you, Wheeljack, but I can’t come up with any. You had every reason to expect that the software was useable and transferable.

…thank you? :slight_smile:

So why are you straining to find a reason to Pit him/her? Or am I being whooshed here?

I concur. “Used” doesn’t mean “useless”. It would be highly unusual if you had a spare key, but no software.

It’s the Pit. There’s always some jerk who, no matter how one-sided the situation, feels like dropping the f-bomb all over the OP. I just wanted t be that special someone. :smiley:

I mean, you could have a single widowed mother whose husband left her more than enough money to live upon, but whose trust fund was stolen b her greedy combo-lawyer/doctor/hairdresser, then remarried, but whose second husband was actually the Ted Bundy of combo-Clergymen/Animal Rescuers/Kindergarten Teacher/Nobel Peace prize winners, and whose car had worked for only eight minutes in all of the last 20 years beaause her neighbor was attacking it with a hammer nightly, and was caught on tape, but the policeman refused to prosecute his brother, and whose health is in the toilet because her psycho second husband tried to kill her repeatedly with a bowling ball, and whose other neighbor plays “Walking on Sunshine” with the volume up to 11 all night long, and was only meekly suggesting that maybe someone was out to get her. And somebody’d still find a reason to tell her all her problems were her fault.

Well, yeh, of course it was. I mean, what else would you expect if you declaw your cat and let it go outside?



Well, I’ve gotten no response from the seller and have submitted a claim with Cross your fingers for me!

I’ve found that the credit card company is often the best way to get your money back. A friend of mine, using a credit card issued to him by his bank (Branch Banking & Trust) ordered a mod-kit for the Playstation 2. What the mod kit does is replace the original case of the PS2 with a new one that allows discs to be loaded in such a way that you can (with the use of a primer disc) put standard CD+Rs with the PS2 game image burnt onto them into the PS2 and they’ll actually work.

(The mod kit itself is totally legal, it will void your warranty and Sony will not repair broken systems so modded, but the modding itself is not a crime, illegaly pirating the software I’d say almost certainly is–but I digress.)

He ordered the kit from a Yahoo! market place merchant. The merchant charged his card, and never shipped the product. After playing e-mail tag with the company for a month, he realized they never had any intention of shipping the product. The company’s customer reviews through the Yahoo! system were generally favorable. However, in doing a google search on the company my friend discovered that tons of people had complained about that company before, just not a high percentage complained through the Yahoo system.

Anyway, despite a lengthy attempt to get the seller, and then Yahoo to refund the purchase price, they wouldn’t do it. Yahoo even going so far as to more or less say they weren’t responsible for their merchants (this incident has left me less than willing to make use of Yahoo merchants.) His next stop was BB&T, one phone call and 24 hours later he received a call from the bank telling him they were going to credit the amount to his personal checking account the next business day.

The bank also said they would be pursuing further remedies against the fraudulent merchant, my friend doesn’t know what happened but that merchant is no longer on the net (or at least not in the Yahoo system any more.)

IANAL, but I’ve heard of something called an implied warranty, or warranty of fitness, which basically says if you sell something, it should be able to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. If the seller knows it cannot be registered, he should not be selling it, at least not without disclosing that fact.