Posted on 05/30/2019 6:17:30 PM PDT by Little Pig
Microsoft Dynamics CRM works well as a replacement.
#50. Isn’t this still a form of “bait and switch” since at the time the customer bought the services etc, he was buying them for his specific work needs that the company advertised their programs would do?
By changing the policy in the middle of the night, without any customer input/comment, this would effectively nullify the original “intent” of the service the customer paid for.
In other words, Salesforce was perpetrating a “fraud” on the customer because I’m sure the service contracts had specified terms of “time” subscriptions and this new policy would interfere with that stated and contract signed condition.
Companies should do a class action fraud lawsuit for millions against Salesforce because by changing the rules of an existing contract in middle stream, it will cost the customers millions of dollars to replace what they had.
This is “fraud”, plan and simple. It also might be a criminal violation of FTC, FCC or other governmental regulatory bodies policies and laws.
Applying this logic, if I run a software company I can prohibit its use if your company performs abortions.
You don't need to win. You need to get 1,000 customers to file suit. Overwhelm their ability to cope with the volume of suits. While they are downing in legal action, the customer base can find a willing competitor to migrate off a platform managed by jackasses.
Arms manufacturers should retaliate and prohibit purchase of any of their weapons by security personnel of any company who uses sales force software.
So many better and less expensive programs out there now other than salesforce.com. Salesforce is useless and full on bs.
I use Salesforce and some of the others. There are others that are far more useful and easier to use.
Eh... I kinda want one... but it’s three or four guns down the ‘to buy’ list.
telenotes is 10x more useful.
I use both Salesforce and telenotes. Night and day.
Whatta bout AR-10s?
Sounds like the NRA has many business opportunities before it.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
As I was trying to say when my phone obliterated half of what I typed:
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, this is an end run on that law.
I agree. And they did sell it willingly.
But you can’t just put in a line that says you can demand anything at any time thereafter, courts will not allow such vague wording to give the contract maker such broad power that is contractually undefined so as to give them such immense and sweeping powers.
Contracts specify details and basically the court would say if not having users buy/sell ar-15s was so important to the company that it would take the software away, etc, why would such a critical deal breaking point not be explicitly stated clearly in the contract?
Companies arent allowed after the fact to change contracts and that is what this company is attempting to do, set contract criteria never established prior.
To me its no different that trying to pass retroactive laws that make legal things illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.