Legal Question-Selling a Mac bought with a Student Discount

[matticus008]

You need experience in the practice of law.

Checkmate.

If a law is not enforceable, it is irrelevant. No matter what your law school tries to tell you.

This isn't a law, and it's not unenforceable. It's unenforced. There's a difference. Learn it. Even if we were talking about an unenforceable law (and we're not), it doesn't change the fact that it's still a law until it's overturned. End of story.

 

[Kwyjibo]

End of story.

well since you said end of story that means its over.

To the OP, tell your brother that while he is technically violating the terms he agrees to with apple. If he wants to sell it, that’s his risk. From personal experience I have purchased a laptop and applecare under the education discount, and transferred the warranty as well as the computer ownership. Apple did this for me, they facilitated the sale in a sense. I view the risk as very minimal, and I believe that intentions would come into play, as long as he is not flipping the hardware for profit. In practice, you would violate the agreement, but at the same time, wanting to upgrade in a year or two is not unreasonable and would not violate the spirit of the agreement.

 

[crazzyeddie]

This entire thread is out of control. This is not an issue. It can be resold with no issues, as long as its not being purchased with the intent to resell. Everyone but matticus008 seems to agree.

 

[oingoboingo]

well since you said end of story that means its over.

To the OP, tell your brother that while he is technically violating the terms he agrees to with apple. If he wants to sell it, that’s his risk. From personal experience I have purchased a laptop and applecare under the education discount, and transferred the warranty as well as the computer ownership. Apple did this for me, they facilitated the sale in a sense. I view the risk as very minimal, and I believe that intentions would come into play, as long as he is not flipping the hardware for profit. In practice, you would violate the agreement, but at the same time, wanting to upgrade in a year or two is not unreasonable and would not violate the spirit of the agreement.

This is also my experience. I purchased a PowerMac G5 system from a friend who bought it using an educational discount, and called up Apple (Australia) to have them transfer the remaining AppleCare to me without any issue or questions asked. Similarly, I sold my old PowerBook that I had purchased with an educational discount to someone who was not a student, and they called up Apple to update the remaining AppleCare with their own details. No problems, and no questions asked.

Whatever the legal technicalities are, they seem to be irrelevant in practice.

 

[matticus008]

This entire thread is out of control. This is not an issue. It can be resold with no issues, as long as its not being purchased with the intent to resell.

That's not what he asked. He asked a legal question, and you people are providing him with bogus information. The contract has a clear statement with a certain legal interpretation.

If I posted to ask "how fast can I legally drive on Kearney Street in San Francisco?" you're all saying "oh 40, 45 is okay and you won't get in trouble." The answer is, "The speed limit is 35."

I'm not disagreeing that 40 or 45 isn't safe, or even that I don't drive 40-45 on it. I'm saying it's not legal. The one guy who answers the question "35mph" might get laughed at by all the other drivers, but he's the one with the right answer.

 

[Kwyjibo]

I think we should let this die down until Steve comes back to us and if he understands what we're all saying ... I mean I think you've more or less attempted to strictly define Steve's question, when he may have no even intended it as such.

Theres been a consensus of sorts

 

[Gizmotoy]

If you call Apple and ask them, they'll tell you the sales agreement for EDU purchases is that you not sell the machine or iPod for 1 year. After that, you're free to do with them as you like. That's what they told me when I bought my PowerBook awhile back. Of course, it may have changed since then. It's been almost 3 years now.

 

[Macky-Mac]

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.

sorry, still gonna have to disagree with you. I'm going to say that you're the one who is reading too much into that line from Apple.

First of all, you haven't provide a quoted from Apple that actually says "not for sale" even though you have put those words in quotes and discussed them as if you had. (if they're somewhere in the text at the document you link to above, then you should be aware that the link isn't working and we cant see that text)

If Apple had meant to say "you aren't allowed to sell a product you bought through the education store" then they could have simply said "you aren't allowed to sell a product you bought through the education store" or something similar. So far you haven't provided a clear example from Apple that this is the intent of their policy.

My dictionary lists 21 meanings for the word "for" and the definition "with the aim or purpose of" comes well before "suitable to".......I think you're reaching too far for a meaning that will get you around to the idea that a qualified purchaser is not allowed to ultimately sell the product after they've used them in the course of getting their education.

The quotes you've provided so far simply don't say what you claim they say.

 

[idkfa]

I agree with matticus008. The point of this thread was to discuss the aspects of this resale within the most pure of legal thought. Under these particular circumstances, it is technically illegal, which is what the OP asked.

Whether or not this will affect his/her or anyone elses resale venures is irrelevant. matticus008 answered the question that was asked, and answered it perfectly. If the OP wanted an opinion on whether or not he should, then that would have been asked.

Warranties are usually not transeferable. I wanted to sell my Zen Micro and give the buyer the extended warranty. The salesperson informed me that I could, so long as I gave the buyer my postal code, which I could tape to the battery. The buyer would gain practical use over the warranty, but would essentially be pretending to be me, which is hardly legal.

 

[iGary]

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.

So are you saying that the PM G4 MDD that I bought and sold (bought with an edu discount when I was in school) was illegal?

 

[Macky-Mac]

I just called the Apple Education store and asked them what the policy really is.....and they say that you can indeed sell the computer after you've used it for a year.

Apple says the idea that you are prohibited from ever reselling a computer you bought through the education store is not true.

 

[idkfa]

Which means before the year is up, it is illegal, yes?

At the Edu store, you cannot buy more than one particular product for each educational year. Also so you cannot buy/sell for profit.

 

[matticus008]

So are you saying that the PM G4 MDD that I bought and sold (bought with an edu discount when I was in school) was illegal?

Not at all. I'm saying that their published terms of sale prohibit it, and that if their actual policy is different, then they need to reflect that in writing. Their developer sales policies are much more clearly defined about the one-year rule before resale, and their US educational sales terms are equally clear, but much more strict. As written, you violated the terms of sale by reselling your Mac (assuming the terms of sale were the same when you were a student).

My dictionary lists 21 meanings for the word "for" and the definition "with the aim or purpose of" comes well before "suitable to".......I think you're reaching too far for a meaning that will get you around to the idea that a qualified purchaser is not allowed to ultimately sell the product after they've used them in the course of getting their education.

There are many definitions of the word "for"...unfortunately, you don't get to mix and match. The one that discusses the proper context ("for sale," "for lease," "for distribution"--the 'for' that means "suitability") is the proper definition, whichever number that might be in your dictionary, even if it's #21. Because the antecedent is "product" and not "purchaser," the intent of the customer is irrelevant--the sentence clearly deals with the product and the product alone.

Apple says the idea that you are prohibited from ever reselling a computer you bought through the education store is not true.

The phone rep is not a lawyer. I don't disagree that their intended policy is to deflect "flipping," but I'm saying that's not what their written policy states.

 

[Kwyjibo]

The phone rep is not a lawyer. I don't disagree that their intended policy is to deflect "flipping," but I'm saying that's not what their written policy states.

Maybe you're too far in the forest to see the trees, BUT if he had ordered the computer from that sales rep, or if you were to make a phone order after asking the same question. You would probably be in the clear. The rep is not a lawyer, but they're a representative of the company, so what they tell you does matter.
You would effectively be making a deal under that premise. That premise obviously carries value. Does apple have to uphold claims made by their sales reps? I think you be hard pressed to find a judge who would do anything to a STUDENT, who had a sales rep lie to him. The sales rep is effectively changing or updating the terms by telling you that.



We all know your interpretation of the written policy. It doesn't mean we have to agree with your strict interpretation, right or wrong.

 

[matticus008]

Does apple have to uphold claims made by their sales reps? I think you be hard pressed to find a judge who would do anything to a STUDENT, who had a sales rep lie to him. The sales rep is effectively changing or updating the terms by telling you that.

They cannot change the written Apple sales policy--no sales agent is authorized to provide an exception to their sales policy and Apple as a company is not liable for that individual's failure to abide by that. You'd have a civil case against the sales rep, but not against Apple. From their sales policy page:

"OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

* Apple is not responsible for typographic errors.
* Apple reserves the right to change the terms and conditions of sale at the Apple Store at any time.
* All sales at the Apple Store are governed by California law, without giving effect to its conflict of law provisions.
* No Apple employee or agent has the authority to vary any of the Apple Store's policies or the terms and conditions governing any sale."

This underscores the extreme importance of having a well-written and unambiguous sales policy.

We all know your interpretation of the written policy. It doesn't mean we have to agree with your strict interpretation, right or wrong.

Whether or not you agree is completely irrelevant to the question. This is a legal question, and unless you have a legal basis for your disagreement, it doesn't matter what you think. I'm not being snippy; I'm just saying that this is a legal issue and if you're not qualified to give an answer that's more than opinion, you should probably leave it at that.

 

[codo]

Heated! At the end of the day, Apple has to protect their sales.

Students will do anything for money - I know! Reselling a computer for profit is on the easy side of that scale. However, I can’t see them doing anything about you selling one computer you purchased after a year or two of use.


Interesting reading all your interpretations. Who would have thought law is so interesting?! Shocking.

 

[Kwyjibo]

#1

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.

#2

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).


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


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).

#3

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.

#4

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.

#5

That's not what he asked. He asked a legal question, and you people are providing him with bogus information. The contract has a clear statement with a certain legal interpretation.

If I posted to ask "how fast can I legally drive on Kearney Street in San Francisco?" you're all saying "oh 40, 45 is okay and you won't get in trouble." The answer is, "The speed limit is 35."

I'm not disagreeing that 40 or 45 isn't safe, or even that I don't drive 40-45 on it. I'm saying it's not legal. The one guy who answers the question "35mph" might get laughed at by all the other drivers, but he's the one with the right answer.

#6

Not at all. I'm saying that their published terms of sale prohibit it, and that if their actual policy is different, then they need to reflect that in writing. Their developer sales policies are much more clearly defined about the one-year rule before resale, and their US educational sales terms are equally clear, but much more strict. As written, you violated the terms of sale by reselling your Mac (assuming the terms of sale were the same when you were a student).

The phone rep is not a lawyer. I don't disagree that their intended policy is to deflect "flipping," but I'm saying that's not what their written policy states.

#7

Whether or not you agree is completely irrelevant to the question. This is a legal question, and unless you have a legal basis for your disagreement, it doesn't matter what you think. I'm not being snippy; I'm just saying that this is a legal issue and if you're not qualified to give an answer that's more than opinion, you should probably leave it at that.

As I've said, you made your opinion clear, very clear infact, seven times clear.

You've pigeonholed the original poster, and you've combatted every single other opinion in this thread.

If the original poster is only seeking legal advice, he can hire an attorney to go over the policy with him. But he posted it on an internet forum, a forum full of people with opinions, we're plenty entitled to post our interpretation of the policy. Matticus clearly has some knowledge of the law, but its impossible for any of us to tell whether he's a first year law student, or a lawyer. It really doesn't matter.

I think you are being snippy, because of all of these responses.

I never represented my opinion as more than its face value.

Matticus I wish you the best of luck in berating the rest of the members and repeating your opinion, WE GET IT, WE KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, THANKS!

 

[jsw]

I think this has run its course. Neither side will persuade the other.

Edit: my reply is here.