where to go for a purchased robot that has lost its deposit - page 4

New comment
 
Sly007:
If the declared algorithm brings stable money who will sell it? And if it only provides correct indications with a certain unspoken or unmeasured probability, then it is at your own risk - to trust it with your money or not

Exactly, I totally agree with you. In other words, selling EAs is a scam. I really hope that in the near future Metacquotes will equate EAs with Signals in the Market and EAs can only be rented.

SZZ: And no more than for a month.
 
Alexander Laur:

Consult a lawyer. If he takes the case, he will tell you what to do. If he does not take the case, forget about the money you lost. The next time you buy something from the Market, be more careful about what you buy. That's all I can advise you on. I don't think the seller will voluntarily give you your money back, although you can try.

Wow! That's terrific advice! Now to feed the lawyers... because they're human beings, they're hungry.

 

The market is not obliged to give such prices that they ensure profits for every trader who bought the robot. Imagine that on a short interval 2 robots, based on mutually exclusive algorithms, have shown profit on history. It is clear that at least 1 of them will fail in the future. The problem is that any software is bought "as is" and any licensing agreement implies disclaimer of claims for possible damage. Huge layers of text are not essentially about that, but about refusing to decompile and transfer this software to third parties. Roughly speaking, if some photoshop has caused you damage, that's your problem. But if you sold it to someone behind the back of the copyright holder, you've violated the license.

One more important point. By entering into a contract, a client of a forex company confirms the warning of risks. The very fact of trading in the market means the willingness to incur losses. If hypothetically the robot were to make a profit all the time, could it denounce the agreement? Legally, no. Any profit in the past does not guarantee a profit in the future. So if a lawyer were to take on such a slippery subject, he would destroy his reputation forever.

 
Nikolay Lobanov:
I downloaded *** made all the settings indicated on the robot's website tested, showed a complete loss of the deposit, I want to get my money back for the robot where to go ?

Nowhere. I have downloaded ***, made all the settings on the robot's website, tested it and showed a complete loss of my deposit.

 
Alexandr Saprykin:

Nowhere. You have to pay for your mistake (you bought it without thinking and without testing it) with your own money.

You can test it for a whole year. It does not mean anything. You can start failing one day later. This is life. It is unpredictable.

 
Sergey Vradiy:

You can test for an entire year. It doesn't mean anything at all. It could be a day late in the process. That's life. It's unpredictable.

The top starter first bought it, then tested it and saw it fail. That he traded with the bought EA was out of the question.
 
The author, no offence, but first you should have asked before buying an EA, read a discussion thread about how this EA works (better the mt4 thread of the same owl), what people advise about what MM and settings to trade with, what they write about the backtest of this owl. I used mt5 version myself for some months, but I took settings from mt4 branch and I know that sometimes EA is losing (sometimes) not all deposit with non-aggressive MM, but with smart money management and periodical withdrawal can be used and I should get some profit.
 
Alexandr Saprykin:
The topiary first bought, then tested and saw a loss in the test. We are not talking about the fact that he traded using the purchased Expert Advisor.

There are many testing techniques. This is as much an approximation as drawing trend lines, i.e. a useless exercise. It's not even worthy of raising such a topic.

 
vladzeit:

Be it your way... Let's develop it further)

I am reasoning from the point of view of the Law and I see one clear catch, that of misleading product advertising misleading the buyer.

The definition has clear criteria and many court decisions.

The fact is that advertising of a product/service on a marketplace is unidirectional, namely:

it indicates only the positive characteristics of the product and does not mention the negative ones, whereas the law expressly obliges the Seller

to obligatorily indicate all the features of the product, information on which must be proportionately reflected.

For example;

In case № A65-27882/2012, the antitrust authority did not like the way of advertising in the form of six shifting frames in a banner.

According to the FAS, this way of display plus the small print does not allow the consumer to understand and comprehend the totality of advertising conditions.

The court held that users should log on to the bank's website and read the terms in more detail (Decision of the FAS Povolzhskiy District dated 25.06.2013).

---

If the law is to be considered, the conclusions you have drawn about what the buyer could and could not check are not relevant for the Law,

because the Law primarily relies on the fact that the purchaser is not required to be competent in goods/services, it is the duty of the seller.

The buyer saw the advertised profitability of the Expert Advisor and bought exactly this (advertised) quality of the product.

Hebought the algorithm - the algorithm works, so what are the questions.

But in terms of advertising, the buyer didn't buy the algorithm, but the product that promised profitability.

That's the problem.

So that's the consumer. Just open the definition of consumer in the relevant Act.

A consumer is a citizen who intends to order or purchase or who orders, purchases or uses goods (works, services) solely for personal, family, household and other needs not related to business activities;

So, in our case there is no need to appeal to the Consumer Protection Act, but to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

And yes, one more thing:

John Kennedy Street,
IRIS House, 3rd Floor
Limassol 3106, Cyprus.

+31 30 369 0501

If anything, this is the legal address of the place where the purchase was made. So, if I am not confused, welcome to the courts in Cyprus.

 

To continue with the legal excursions.

I have not found in paragraph 1 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code the requirement to provide information about the goods. Can anyone correct me?

Paragraph 2 of Chapter 30, please do not quote:

Art. 492 p.1

Under the contract of retail sale, the seller, who carries out entrepreneurial activities in the sale of goods at retail, undertakes to transfer to the buyer the goods intended for personal, family, household or other use not related to entrepreneurial activities.

1234567891011...16
New comment