To summarize, there’s a reasonably well-known deal that Microsft will give a $400 rebate on the purchase of a computer from Best Buy, among other places, if the purchaser agrees to a three year MSN internet services contract.
Apparently, in California, such deals are voidable as a matter of public policy (California prohibits forcing consumers to take a loan in connection with a purchase, and this apparently qualifies as a loan for the purposes of that rule).
So… as a matter of morality… is it moral to plan to go into Best Buy, buy a computer, sign up for MSN, get your rebate, and then cancel your MSN service - and then do it?
In a strict sense, it is immoral to plan ahead of time to do something of this sort. However, I have done similar - and I have lots of excuses for such behavior.
The company I screwed was Colombia House, and I screwed them on at least three occaisions. I’m sure you are all familiar with the gig, you get a bunch of free CDs, you agree to buy X many more over X period of time, and in the meantime they send you a card each month that you must send back or they send you the crappy CD of the month.
Well, here is how I dealt with these people. I get the free CDs, and I ignore all future correspondence from them. They send me CDs of the month, I mark them ‘refused’ and put them back in the mail. They send me letters telling me I am a bad boy, I ignore them. Eventually they kick me out of the ‘club’ and threaten to sick bill collectors on me (for $100, yeah right). They never bother to do so. Six months later, they send me a letter saying they want me back in the club, and this time I get twice as many free CDs since I am a valued ex-member and they want my business back.
How can you not fuck these people over?
Its the same with Microsoft, Juno, and all the other companies giving huge rebates for internet service. How can you not fuck them over? You think the board members of these corporations sit around and discuss the morality of their actions?
But I digress. It is still wrong. I’d like to think I’d not engage in such pranks now - but I understand those who would. On my moral yardstick it is wrong, but I wouldn’t begrudge anyone who took advantage of a corporation that made an offer in a state where it was unenforceable.
As I alluded to in the GQ thread, it is not right to screw any company whether it be Microsoft or not.
No it is not moral to plan to do so ahead of time. If you sign up and then you decide it is not a good service and decide to cancel and you do not have to pay back the money (that is they never ask for it) then fine, but to plan to cancel right after you get the money is wrong. It is stealing and is just as bad if not worse than software piracy or even taking sometime physically from a store.
No, I don’t think it’s right. Even if you honestly agreed the the service at the time and then change your mind later, you shouldn’t use the law to weasel out of it. You have an obligation to uphold a promise made in good faith. Microsoft honored their end (giving you $400), you should honor yours. You were not deceived in any way about what was required to do to get the $400.
I’m going to reserve my opinion about the morality of starting in good faith, deciding you don’t want the service, and cancelling. But I absoluely agree that planning this from the beginning is immoral.
Kind of sad that so many people are gleefully suggesting that because it’s Microsoft, it’s OK.
Bricker: Yes, it is sad. I see it as a case of envy, perhaps even class envy. I would be the first to admit the competion is a good thing, but if someone is so smart that he outdistances all opponents people can become jealous, ESPECIALLY if their own lives are not so hot.
I see Bill Gates as a perfect example of what is good about the U.S… A college drop out CAN make it big! Dave from Wendy’s is another example, he didn’t even graduate from High School.
I would have to say in reference to the OP, it would be wrong if you planned it.
Those inidicating that it is OK because it is Microsoft probably justify their actions by stating that Microsoft hasn’t always walked the straight’n narrow in all their business dealings either. But that sort of logic, if carried to its ultimate conclusion, would only cause financial chaos if carried to the inth degree.
I agree with most of the posters that to sign on to this deal with the premeditative idea of nullifying the agreement is both amoral and just plain nasty.
First of all, anyone who enters an agreement with the intent of failing to follow through on the promises they make is a-moral by definition. It’s called fraud in most places.
Second of all, that isn’t what happened in CA. In CA the law didn’t allow Microsoft to require what they required elsewhere for the rebate. Therefor, those in CA who did what they did were not a-moral, they simply were doing what Microsoft should have anticipated: signing up for a ‘free’ rebate. Although the contract read the same as elsewhere, the TERMS weren’t the same because CA law precluded such an agreement.
“A-moral by definition”? That’s pretty harsh, wouldn’t you say? If someone acts immorally in one situation, then by definition they have no morals whatsoever?
That which does not kill me just makes me really irritable
How many of you wonder whether or not Microsoft (or whoever) simply passes on the cost of getting screwed to the honest customers, or for that matter the same customer in the form of higher prices for other services.
I’m not saying this justifies the act, but aren’t most print ads misleading in that they show a price that is only valid if you sign up for thre years of MSN, and it’s only explained in the fine print?
That itself starts the deal off on an immoral slant, IMHO.
I wanted to post some further thoughts on this thread. In my prior post, I noted that what happened in CA and OR was not people reneging on contracts, but instead people doing what the contract in those states allowed.
The question raised in the last couple posts deals more with how we deal with others and expect them to deal with us. If I had made an offer, expecting someone to do A, and that person figured out he could do B instead, frustrating my intent and costing me money, I would, I think, be a bit upset if he indeed did do B. Thus, while the people who took advantage of the ‘free’ rebate weren’t breaking a contract, were they behaving according to the Golden Rule? One suspects not. One’s morality shouldn’t be measured by the ‘morality’ of the person one is dealing with.
Agreed, DS, but it is reasonable to consider the information resources available to the other party. When, in your example, layman me makes a deal with layman you but I turn out not to be a layman but an expert, I have taken unethical advantage. But if expert me makes a deal with expert you and I turn out to be just a little more expert, I have not behaved improperly.
So back to the example, it is not unethical to break the Microsoft contract. The ethical ability to do so arises not from Microsoft’s morality or its financial resources, but from its legal resources. It is completely reasonable for me the consumer to presume that the most valuable corporation in the world did a cursory search of my state’s consumer protection laws before offering the rebate.
I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
I toyed with asking “Is it ethical” in the OP. I chose to ask about morality, because in my view ‘ethical’ refers to behavior under a theory or principles which guide an individual or group, and ‘moral’ refers to the more general aspect of acting rightly or wrongly. This may be an indefensible distinction, but I see ethics as being a more codified system of behavior, and morality as being a more all-encompassing vision of simply acting rightly.
It is beyond cavil that the people who cancelled their agreements did so legally. The laws of California gave them that right. The corporation drafted the agreement, and any ambiguity is construed against them. It’s fair to assume they are responsible for knowing what the laws of the state permit them - and their customers - to do.
I would accept, then, that the people acted ethically.
I am not so sure I agree they acted morally. To my way of thinking, to plan to abrogate an agreement before you make it is wrong. Now, I can’t prove that (if I could, then this post would belong in GQ, yes?)
I think we can look to laws as a indication of what is moral, but not as a definition.
There is no question that Microsoft KNEW the law of California voided the section of the contract requiring subsequent behaviour. Not the issue.
Morality is not based on what is ‘legal.’ The ‘Golden Rule’ simply puts the burden on each of us to behave properly, regardless of what others around us with whom we interact are doing. If you believe that a properly moral person is one who does unto others as he/she would have done unto him/her, then one must look at what one is doing, put oneself in the shoes of the other person, and ask how one would feel if on the receiving end of the treatment. Trust me, if you were Microsoft, relying on people to be nice and do what they weren’t legally required to do, you probably would feel a bit hard done by when they acted all too human…