"you mislead me to believe that you would give me a product that would work, it does not."... very simple allegation and more often than not, it gets up all the time. different between expressed fitness for purpose and implied fitness for purpose. misleading doesn't require guarantees of any kind.
I think you'll find that notwithstanding contractual limitations, as in my opinion , there is often legal liability owed to someone who suffers a third party loss for a product which, whether in whole or in part, was not fit for purpose. the allegation, whether proven or not, then becomes a misleading and deceptive conduct claim, which is generally the broadest claim, and encompasses a wider scope.
in any event, I never said anyone has mislead anybody, but to suggest con loss or limitation of liability clauses are completely bullet proof, is none sense
and no, it's not a magical law, it's a real law.
the next question then becomes whether, and it's a bit IF, a professional duty type class action is lodged, that the company took out the appropriate level and type of insurances, because if not, it's off balance sheet, which then subsequently creates new issues.
it's all hypothetical, but still a factor nonetheless
as always, just my opinion and DYOR
TYR Price at posting:
$2.62 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)