McAfee SiteAdvisor Blog

$37.00 - a $5.99 proccessing fee does not equal $28.93.

... nor does it equal a "100% refund" ...

"Or I could interpret it as FDHQ starting to worry about the ire of the Web community they've aroused"

It's cause you guys have gotten too big for them to fob off and gerra way with it [g] GO SA!

"Blogs are the way the world learns geography."

-- Samarra Semanczyk (1984-)

*** GIVE BACK HIS MONEY***

Failure of a Remedy to Meet Its Essential Purpose. Under ' 2-719(2), the limitation of remedy will be upheld "unless circumstances cause [it] to fail of its essential purpose," in which case the limitation is voided and the customer may seek any remedies available pursuant to the UCC. There are two ways of determining whether a remedy has failed of its essential purpose. Dowty Communications v. Novatel Computer Systems Corp., 817 F. Supp. 581, 585 (D. Md. 1992), aff.d, 33 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. Denied, 115 S.Ct. 1254 (1995); U.S. Metalsource Corp. v. W&B Associates, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4182 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Using the first method, the court determines the potential breaches which the parties envisioned when they agreed to limit their remedies and compares the actual breach to the parties. expectations. In other words, if the parties. expectations at the time of contracting are consistent with what actually occurred, then the limited remedy has not failed of its essential purpose and should be enforced. Using the second method, the court determines whether the allegedly breaching party complied with its obligation to provide the agreed upon remedy or remedies. If the court determines that the breaching party failed to provide the agreed upon remedy, then the remedy has failed of its essential purpose.

In Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America, 902 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1990), the Ninth Circuit stated: "A limited repair remedy serves two main purposes. First, it serves to shield the seller from liability during the attempt to make the goods conform. Second, it ensures that the buyer will receive goods conforming to the contract specifications during a reasonable period of time." The court noted, "It is not necessary to show negligence or bad faith on the part of the seller, for the detriment to the buyer is the same whether the seller.s unsuccessful efforts were diligent, dilatory or negligent." The court found that the limited "repair or replace" remedy had failed of its essential purpose where the seller had been unable to provide the buyer with a conforming, "sure fire" glass tempering furnace despite two and one-half years of effort.

The finding of the Milgard court that a remedy fails of its essential purpose if the buyer does not receive conforming goods within a reasonable period of time calls into question the efficacy of a typical software supplier remedy which provides only that the supplier will use its "best efforts" to fix errors in the software. If the supplier is unable to fix an error, the Milgard court might find that the remedy had failed of its essential purpose since the buyer never received conforming goods even if the supplier could prove it used its best efforts to fix the error.

This company must refund your money. Where is there agreement to offer a free software use from the owner of said software. Copy Right laws are very clear. Call you credit card company! This is fraud.

p0wned.

May I pay my bill for Bankcard Services by Credit Card instead of check?
Ruth Saul

I might ask ....

The web page FreeDownloadHQ.com claims, "Download hundreds of programs instantly"
( See the FreeDownloadHQ page here)

But the FDHQ letter to Keats says, "... offers access to over 85 downloads, ..."

• Which makes me wonder if the terms "hundreds" isn't deceptive. I'd ask FDHQ if they would consider changing the web advertising to be more accurate? Maybe it should read, "Download fewer than 100 programs for just $xx.xx"?
• And make the terms simpler and more prominent? How about a simplified policy statement? I tried to read the TOS and found it complicated and confusing, more about what I was obligated to and not about what I'd get.
• Hey -- before I click on the repeated "Order" links all over the page, why not show/list the programs available for download?
• And why not tell us about the company and people behind FDHQ to build our trust in the quality support and expertise they offer?
• Since that the tutorials, reviews and FAQs are clearly a key element of the service FDHQ offers, they should explain the services before we buy ... otherwise we pay a fee and then lose $5.99 if we immediately find we don't like the quality of the downloads or help.
• Before buying, these services were never explained or understood (or offered).

Oh -- since many authors like to control distribution and avoid stale versions on "mirror" sites, does FDHQ have a link to the author's site and "permissions notice" posted so we can verify they are current and the author supports their inclusion? I hear all the "best" download mirrors do that. My "guru" buddy says it's one way I can tell a company is concerned & responsible.

Stuff like this makes me want wish some kind of responsibility would rest on the host of the web pages. Maybe all your readers will look at these crazy sites you find and sign up all the 'tech support' email addresses for some spam sites. That e-card site I read about is itching for me to add places I hate to the mailing list.

Hi, I am just a beginner in the pc world. My sister informed me @ your "siteadvisor" & I just love it!! Well, 99% out of 100% I'd say.But, I do not blame you people. I blame the "FREE REGISTRY FIX" people for the "bait & hook" scam! I thought it was a free scan to fix my registry problems then right in the middle of the scan a nasty pop-up appeared telling me I needed to buy the Full Version from having only HALF the amount of errors required for the trial version! WHAT'S UP WITH THAT!!!!!!!!! Please put them on your "bad boy" list & keep up the good work!!! Still a faithful user of your "siteadvisor".