Re: Text of count every vote act.

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 21:37:52 CST

Hello Joe:

Cute. Seriously though, if a product met the buyer's specifications when
purchased and was in compliance with laws in force at the time of purchase,
it would be unreasonable to expect it to meet new specifications or changed
laws especially beyond the typical life of the product. One would have to
argue that the vendor should have known, reasonably anticipated (say based
on their knowledge gained from the design of the product) or even concealed
from the buyer changes in specifications or laws that might occur over the
life of the product. While the argument is not impossible, I imagine you'd
agree that it would be difficult.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:11:27 -0800, Ed Kennedy <>
> wrote:
>> Hello Joe:
>> I think a retro-active lemon law would be a non-starter simply
>> because the 'lemon' machines as certified, met the standards when
>> they were accepted by the customer. To my thinking, it would be
>> like asking for refund on a moped soley for the reason that you
>> later find that they aren't allowed on controlled access freeways..
> Wouldn't it be more like if we deemed that mopeds were unsafe and
> overly-polluting that they couldn't be driven without demonstrating
> that they've met new standards? -Joe
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Mar 31 23:17:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2005 - 23:17:09 CST