Topinio wrote:I've read the full terms, and they do not state that the user agrees by the act of RMA'ing that they have not sent in a CPU with "damages due to external causes, including improper use, problems with electrical power, accident, neglect, alteration, repair, improper installation, or improper testing"
What the RMAíng user agrees to are terms that sayIt's pathetically written T&C's, and I'd be astounded if auxy could be considered to have committed any fraud based on them; she'd've not actually been entitled to a replacement under them, but not being entitled to a replacement apparently doesn't stop them giving her one.
- "[t]his limited warranty does not cover" such damages;
- AMD will replace a processor covered by the warranty;
- AMD will not replace a processor "if AMD determines the processor is not covered by the limited warranty".
Deanjo wrote:By omitting how the damage was done that is concealment.
Doesn't matter for the 2 AMD APU's, by my reading.
Intel, I don't know the score there...
What she did is called silent fraud. What is defined as silent fraud is this (with an example).
Silent Fraud
Silent fraud occurs when a defendant fails to disclose material facts. To establish this, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following elements by clear and convincing evidence:
The defendant failed to disclose one or more material facts about the subject matter of the claim;
The defendant had actual knowledge of the fact(s);
The defendant’s failure to disclose the fact(s) caused the plaintiff to have a false impression;
When the defendant failed to disclose the fact(s), the defendant knew the failure would create a false impression;
When defendant failed to disclose the fact(s), defendant intended that plaintiff rely on the resulting false impression;
The plaintiff relied on the false impression; and
The plaintiff was damaged as a result of the reliance upon the false impression.
For example, where a defendant sells a plaintiff a car where the defendant knows the odometer had been rolled back, but the defendant does not mention to the plaintiff that the odometer is not accurate, the defendant knows that it is highly probable that the plaintiff would rely upon the mileage figure from the odometer in making the decision to purchase the car. It is likely that the defendant's silence under these circumstances would support a subsequent action for silent fraud.
Auxy's action on the delidded CPU's hit all the criteria.