Legal Question-Selling a Mac bought with a Student Discount

[Steve1496]

My brother, who is in college, is considering purchasing a Mac using the student discount. However, he has a simple question:After buying a notebook under the student discount, can he sell it at a later time when he's done using it?

I wondered if this would be considered illegal. Assuming he purchased AppleCare for the item, when transferring it to someone else would Apple see that it was purchased under Student Discount, and not allow the transfer?

Thanks!
Steve

 

[Benjamindaines]

Selling it I think you would just have to tell people that you bought it under a discount, but I really don't know about the AppleCare. Since Apple has to by law tell you these things about AppleCare I suggest reading the terms of service / use.

 

[matticus008]

My brother, who is in college, is considering purchasing a Mac using the student discount. However, he has a simple question:After buying a notebook under the student discount, can he sell it at a later time when he's done using it?

I wondered if this would be considered illegal. Assuming he purchased AppleCare for the item, when transferring it to someone else would Apple see that it was purchased under Student Discount, and not allow the transfer?

Thanks!
Steve

Technically, purchases from the Education store are ineligible for resale, but people do it anyway. There is a (legitimate) concern that people will buy from the education store, sell it for a profit, buy another, etc. as a way to make money.

The AppleCare will not transfer if you attempt to sell it, because the student AppleCare is only valid for students. If you sell it to another student, I guess that gets into a grey area.

 

[Steve1496]

Technically, purchases from the Education store are ineligible for resale, but people do it anyway. There is a (legitimate) concern that people will buy from the education store, sell it for a profit, buy another, etc. as a way to make money.

The AppleCare will not transfer if you attempt to sell it, because the student AppleCare is only valid for students. If you sell it to another student, I guess that gets into a grey area.

When you mention the student AppleCare, do you mean an AppleCare warranty purchased under the student discount? What if, say, he purchased the notebook from Apple with the discount, but then he purchased AppleCare without Student discount--would he still be stopped from tranferring the AppleCare?

Thanks a bunch!
Steve

 

[matticus008]

What if, say, he purchased the notebook from Apple with the discount, but then he purchased AppleCare without Student discount--would he still be stopped from tranferring the AppleCare?

If he pays full retail price for the AppleCare, it can be transferred along with the computer. The computer itself still technically can't be sold, however.

 

[enpojken]

i'm interested to know about this too.

i can't find any mention of it in apple's education store agreement terms & conditions, legal information etc.

in this previous thread people seem to think you can resell and transfer the warranty: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/124646/

 

[matticus008]

i'm interested to know about this too.

i can't find any mention of it in apple's education store agreement terms & conditions, legal information etc.

in this previous thread people seem to think you can resell and transfer the warranty: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/124646/

Resale:
"Higher Education - Faculty and staff of Higher Education institutions; and students attending, or accepted into a Higher Education institution are eligible to purchase. Purchases from the Apple Store for Education Individuals are not for institutional purchase or resale."
Source: Apple Store Sales Policy

AppleCare would also be governed by this restriction, as an Apple product sold at discount. If you bought a non-educational discount AppleCare, you would be free to transfer that product.

 

[Blackheart]

Resale:
"Higher Education - Faculty and staff of Higher Education institutions; and students attending, or accepted into a Higher Education institution are eligible to purchase. Purchases from the Apple Store for Education Individuals are not for institutional purchase or resale."
Source: Apple Store Sales Policy

AppleCare would also be governed by this restriction, as an Apple product sold at discount. If you bought a non-educational discount AppleCare, you would be free to transfer that product.

AFAIK, AppleCare sticks with the computer no matter if it were purchased at retail price or education price. Items should not be purchased, using the education discount, with the INTENT to resell for a profit (aka, flipping). If the OP's brother buys the computer and AppleCare right now, with education discount, the computer and AppleCare are fully transferable when it needs to be resold.

 

[enpojken]

Resale:
"Higher Education - Faculty and staff of Higher Education institutions; and students attending, or accepted into a Higher Education institution are eligible to purchase. Purchases from the Apple Store for Education Individuals are not for institutional purchase or resale."
Source: Apple Store Sales Policy

AppleCare would also be governed by this restriction, as an Apple product sold at discount. If you bought a non-educational discount AppleCare, you would be free to transfer that product.

hmm, i had only looked at the UK terms and conditions.

could this just be in the US? this isn't mentioned on the UK pages:

Apple Store Terms & Conditions http://store.apple.com/Catalog/uk/Images/salespolicies_consumer.html

Apple Store for Education Individuals Terms & Conditions: http://store.apple.com/Catalog/uk_inst/Images/salespolicies_individual.html

 

[matticus008]

AFAIK, AppleCare sticks with the computer no matter if it were purchased at retail price or education price.

Right. But the computer itself can't be resold according to Apple's terms--AppleCare in general can be transferred if bought, as can Apple hardware, but not when purchased with an educational discount. It doesn't say anything about intent or length of time before resale (in contrast, the developer terms specify that the computer is not eligible for resale until one year from the date of purchase).

If the OP's brother buys the computer and AppleCare right now, with education discount, the computer and AppleCare are fully transferable when it needs to be resold.

Technically, it's not. That's not to say there are necessarily consequences, but those are the rules.

hmm, i had only looked at the UK terms and conditions.

could this just be in the US?

Absolutely. Consumer laws and sales policies vary from country to country. In the UK, however, there may be rules regarding "academic" purchases written into law that don't need to be mentioned in the sales policies. You would be responsible for complying with those (they could expressly allow it or forbid resale).

 

[crazzyeddie]

AFAIK, AppleCare sticks with the computer no matter if it were purchased at retail price or education price. Items should not be purchased, using the education discount, with the INTENT to resell for a profit (aka, flipping). If the OP's brother buys the computer and AppleCare right now, with education discount, the computer and AppleCare are fully transferable when it needs to be resold.

I completely agree with this. Only a very strict and literal interpretation of "no resale" would totally prohibt someone from reselling the computer.

Purchases from the Apple Store for Education Individuals are not for institutional purchase or resale."

This is most certainly there to make it illegal for resellers to purchase items at a discount, as Blackheart said. Thats why it also mentions institutions, as it is prohibiting certain people (ie resellers) from buying the product so that Apple controls who gets what price.

 

[matticus008]

I completely agree with this. Only a very strict and literal interpretation of "no resale" would totally prohibt someone from reselling the computer.

There's only one interpretation. Whether that's what Apple intended or not is another matter, but the terms are clear and unequivocable as well as sound and legally expressive. No institutional purchases and no resales. No exceptions, except where required by superseding law. There's no "may" or "intent" clause.

Thats why it also mentions institutions, as it is prohibiting certain people (ie resellers) from buying the product so that Apple controls who gets what price.

Resellers aren't institutions. Institutional orders are from schools for departmental/non-personal use, which are not made through the Apple Education Store, but through the Institutional Ordering program.

 

[w8ing4intelmacs]

There's only one interpretation.

Maybe, but not the one you're thinking of. It is referring to institutional purchases and institutional resale. It does not refer to an individual who buys a computer and later sells it. No court would ever come down with a judgment that would prohibit someone from selling their personal property ("You are hereby sentenced to keep your Mac for the rest of your life.") That's why Apple limits how many computers an individual can buy at an educational discount.

AppleCare is the same way. They don't "tag" your computer as educational, so that when you try to transfer AppleCare, a red flag goes off and the police are notified.

This is such a ridiculous thread.

 

[Macky-Mac]

There's only one interpretation. Whether that's what Apple intended or not is another matter, but the terms are clear and unequivocable as well as sound and legally expressive. No institutional purchases and no resales. No exceptions, except where required by superseding law. There's no "may" or "intent" clause.


Resellers aren't institutions. Institutional orders are from schools for departmental/non-personal use, which are not made through the Apple Education Store, but through the Institutional Ordering program.

I'm going to disagree with you......I think you're ,isunderstanding and misinterpreting Apple's statement....you're missing the importance of the word "for" in Apple's statement......it doesn't say "no resale", rather it says "...are not for institutional purchase or resale.".....the word "for" clearly addresses the intention of the buyer and means you aren't allowed to buy the product with the purpose being "for" resale.....that's quite different than saying you can't sell the product after you've used it in your educational studies.

again, Apples' statement clearly addresses the intention of the buyer.

"resale" is a commonly understood term that refers to a type of retailing.....a merchant buys a product and then resells it with the intention of making a profit......people who engage in such activity are "resellers" and Apple is clearly saying that people buying for such a purpose are not eligible to buy through the education store.

 

[matticus008]

Maybe, but not the one you're thinking of. It is referring to institutional purchases and institutional resale.

False parallelism. Modifiers do not carry over in legal documents. "Institutional purchase" and "resale" are separate entities. Rules of English parallelism would require the terms to state "institutional resale" if that is the intended meaning.

No court would ever come down with a judgment that would prohibit someone from selling their personal property ("You are hereby sentenced to keep your Mac for the rest of your life.")

Not entirely true. There exists a massive number of products and personal purchases which have special conditions associated with them. When you pay a discounted price, there are consequences and tradeoffs. At the developer store, that's a rule that you have to own the machine one year before reselling. Here, the rules clearly state no resale. Again, that's not necessarily their intent, and it's obviously not something they enforce, but a rule is a rule. Just because everyone always drives 50mph on a given street with a posted limit of 35 doesn't mean the speed limit is 50.

"resale" is a commonly understood term that refers to a type of retailing.....a merchant buys a product and then resells it with the intention of making a profit......people who engage in such activity are "resellers" and Apple is clearly saying that people buying for such a purpose are not eligible to buy through the education store.

That's a colloquial usage, but "resale" has a finite legal definition, and it's a broad and simple one. Note that "resale" in one of its most common uses refers to the act of selling a used car. There may be an intended distinction, but there is no such expressed distinction. Again, their intent may indeed be to dissuade "flippers" but "Apple products purchased from the education store are not for resale" isn't a nuanced statement. It might just be bad policywriting, but it is what it is.

Edit: Because this discussion has gotten substantially more attention than anticipated, I am adding the disclaimer that IANYL--for anyone in this thread. Statements rendered are not legal advice for any client.

 

[matticus008]

ou're missing the importance of the word "for" in Apple's statement......it doesn't say "no resale", rather it says "...are not for institutional purchase or resale.".....the word "for" clearly addresses the intention of the buyer and means you aren't allowed to buy the product with the purpose being "for" resale

You're reading too much into it. "For" simply means "as being" and indicates suitability. "Not for sale" means not eligible to be purchased, not that an object is "intended to be in a state of non-transfering ownership," even though they might seem to be almost identical in meaning to you. "Intended for" would get you the meaning you're assigning to the sentence. People who write contracts know what they're doing, and the products must stand up to tough scrutiny.

It's possible that that portion of their sales policy is badly written, but speculation on the process doesn't matter in defining the output.

 

[Blackheart]

To the OP:

In conclusion, don't worry about it. No one cares if you resell a computer bought with an educational discount. Apple isn't going to sue your brother based on some obscure, albeit controversial, sales policy.

 

[matticus008]

To the OP:

In conclusion, don't worry about it. No one cares if you resell a computer bought with an educational discount.

That's not what he asked. He asked if it would be considered "illegal," not whether he could do it without punishment. The answer is that technically, it is impermissable.

 

[Blackheart]

That's not what he asked. He asked if it would be considered "illegal," not whether he could do it without punishment. The answer is that technically, it is impermissable.

"considered", right, I think the general population would not consider it illegal. I also have a sneaking suspicion that neither Apple nor the courts would consider it illegal. This debate is useless because no one cares.

 

[matticus008]

"considered", right, I think the general population would not consider it illegal. I also have a sneaking suspicion that neither Apple nor the courts would consider it illegal. This debate is useless because no one cares.

The OP cares and asked a legal question. What the general population thinks is irrelevant, and the answers in this thread should come from people with appropriate experience and backgrounds for a legal question, not some wild speculation just for the sake of arguing.

 

[Blackheart]

The OP cares and asked a legal question. What the general population thinks is irrelevant, and the answers in this thread should come from people with appropriate experience and backgrounds for a legal question, not some wild speculation just for the sake of arguing.

A law is only useful if it is enforced. This will never been enforced; thus, useless. There are many laws that are plain silly which will never be enforced, yet are broken continuously. Why follow the silly law then? Good karma or just to be an upstanding citizen? It's an "improper use of a turn signal" to hold your hand outside of the window while you're driving... yet people do it because no one cares. Illegal? Yes, but it's legality is often irrelevant.

 

[matticus008]

A law is only useful if it is enforced. This will never been enforced; thus, useless.

And again, a tangential leap. An unenforced law is still a law, period. What you do about it is your own business, but if you ask for legal help on whether something would be in compliance with applicable terms and laws, the answer doesn't depend on which laws or policies that TPTB choose to enforce. Legality is never irrelevant--people only pretend it is to keep themselves from feeling guilty.

 

[Blackheart]

And again, a tangential leap. An unenforced law is still a law, period. What you do about it is your own business, but if you ask for legal help on whether something would be in compliance with applicable terms and laws, the answer doesn't depend on which laws or policies that TPTB choose to enforce. Legality is never irrelevant--people only pretend it is to keep themselves from feeling guilty.

In any case, I think YOU'VE made a tangential leap into the philosophy of law.

"I wondered if this would be considered illegal. Assuming he purchased AppleCare for the item, when transferring it to someone else would Apple see that it was purchased under Student Discount, and not allow the transfer?"

The OP is wondering if Apple would see this has being illegal. No, they wouldn't, because they don't care.

 

[matticus008]

The OP is wondering if Apple would see this has being illegal. No, they wouldn't, because they don't care.

You're committing the same logical error that you have for the past three posts. Whether or not Apple does anything about it doesn't change its legality. "Would it be considered illegal?" is a question that the public doesn't decide and that Apple doesn't decide. Only people engaged in the interpretation of law can answer that.

"Would Apple notice and not allow the transfer" is a different matter, and one with which there's no disagreement in this thread. Apple chooses not to care about it. That doesn't mean that they can't change their mind and choose to enforce their terms at any point they feel like doing so, nor does it mean they ever will enforce it.

 

[Blackheart]

You're committing the same logical error that you have for the past three posts. Whether or not Apple does anything about it doesn't change its legality. "Would it be considered illegal?" is a question that the public doesn't decide and that Apple doesn't decide. Only people engaged in the interpretation of law can answer that.

"Would Apple notice and not allow the transfer" is a different matter, and one with which there's no disagreement in this thread. Apple chooses not to care about it. That doesn't mean that they can't change their mind and choose to enforce their terms at any point they feel like doing so, nor does it mean they ever will enforce it.

You need experience in the practice of law. If a law is not enforceable, it is irrelevant. No matter what your law school tries to tell you. Please go talk to people who enforce the laws and you might learn a thing or two.