On 10/08/2016 01:51 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-10-08 17:18, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 10/08/2016 10:47 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-10-08 16:14, Anton Aylward wrote:
It was 'validation' -- fit for the intended purpose.
The intended purpose was the ONLY thing that mattered, was the reason for the purchase in the first place.
I'm not researching for an article!
Please remember that English is not my first language. Testing, as in testing if the card has really 32GB.
Actually the phrase "fit for the intended purpose" refers to Consumer Protection legislation in the so-called 'Common Law' countries, that is those that derive there jurisprudence processes from the English traditional rather than from 'Code Napoleon'. It basically means that if something is advertised as being capable of a function (or you determined in communication with the vendor that the item was so capable) and it is not then the vendor is liable for r4stitution of cost and perhaps even damages. 'Damages' meaning costs you incurred because of the shortcoming, for example if it was a safety device and it failed to perform as advertised and you were injured, then the vendor may be liable for medical costs and possibly loss of work. Its what many products have some elaborate EULA verbiage. I'm sure there is similar Consumer Protection legislation elsewhere but I'm not familiar with it other then UK/Canada/USA. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org