where to go for a purchased robot that has lost its deposit - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Have you tried googling?
I know this law better than most lawyers.
Paragraph 3:
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 entrepreneurial activities;
Specially for you I highlighted.
Here's to it, good night.
I know this law better than most lawyers.
Paragraph 3:
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 entrepreneurial activities;
I have highlighted it for you.
Here's to it, good night.
then who does the purchaser of the advisor think the advisor is?
Paragraph 1 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regulates all this. Study it. Just don't look at paragraph 2, it's again for non-entrepreneurial needs. I'm off to bed.
Tomorrow I register as self-employed, and the day after that I buy an advisor and declare it null and void.
It seems to me that you are trying to bring in the Consumer Protection Act. But it doesn't work here, because the goods are being purchased for profit. Accordingly, only the Civil Code of the Russian Federation works here, and there, as far as I remember, concluded a contract, the goods correspond to the conditions specified in the contract, that's it, you're free, unless otherwise stipulated by law.
Here's your post. That's right.
But I wrote above that there is no way of verifying that the advisor complies with the description; in addition, there is no contract for any of the products on the market, which stipulates the buyer's risks and the seller's reservations.
don't confuse the terms.
broker, meta-quotes, products in the marketplace - there are rules and agreements for all of these, and you are mixing it all up by substituting one for the other.
If you are not satisfied with any point of the offer (ceased to please), you should not register on this forum, use metatron and enter into any contract with DC / Broker. If you are no longer happy with the offer, then delete from the forum, from the Market, the contract with the DC / Broker - neither you nor the client is not forced. Heap is just by the structure of the law.
As soon as you will be offered an independent product(by API) working with DC/broker and (suddenly) guarantee profitability, and you with this product will receive damage - you have a chance. All the creativity of exchanges/hvorex/dts/brokers offers around rules of use, regulations, etc. - nowhere is there any mention of any profitability from using these technical phenomena.
If you are not satisfied with any point of the offer (ceased to please), you should not register on this forum, use the metatron and enter into any contract with DC / Broker. If you are no longer happy with the offer, then delete from the forum, from the Market, the contract with the DC / Broker - neither you nor the client is not forced. Pile just by the structure of the law.
As soon as you will be offered an independent product(by API) working with DC/broker and (suddenly) guarantee profitability, and you with this product will receive damage - you have a chance. All the creativity of exchanges/hvorex/dts/brokers offers around rules of use, regulations, etc. - Nowhere is there any mention of any profitability from using these technical phenomena.
If you are not satisfied with any point of the offer (ceased to please), you should not register on this forum, use the metatron and enter into any contract with DC / Broker. If you are no longer happy with the offer, then delete from the forum, from the Market, the contract with the DC / Broker - neither you nor the client is not forced. Pile just by the structure of the law.
As soon as you will be offered an independent product(by API) working with DC/broker and (suddenly) guarantee profitability, and you with this product will receive damage - you have a chance. All the creativity of exchanges/hvorex/dts/brokers offers around rules of use, regulations, etc. - nowhere is there any mention of any profitability from using these technical phenomena.
О! Martha said the main point: ". All sellers of profitable EAs are crooks. ...". Notice I didn't say that.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... Or you're making a fool of yourself. I promise not to quote you again and please do the same to me, thank you.
Unfortunately, I understand a little more and this is not legal advice, hire a lawyer, give him all the offers and contracts, say "I want" and count a couple of centimetres. Your idea might work in the Commonwealth of Independent States, but on entirely different principles from the law. And we haven't even touched certification of software product, transaction signatures and a bunch of other bullshit (for example a paper from FSTEK for a hardware and software system).
О! Martha said the main thing: ". All sellers of profitable EAs are crooks. ...". Notice I didn't say that.
"at a certain point in history". You don't consider yourself a scammer for having programmed for yourself in a certain way some sort of paternity, as a qualified participant or owner/manager of that participant you understand better than the average layman where whose boundaries of responsibility lie. You have to get used to the fact that programming and financial markets are now available to anyone without the requisite technical and/or financial education.
Does anyone remember a similar hullabaloo about the profitability of strategies for Quicksilver with its strategies or with Bondar's drive? I don't. The reason is probably not a free entry ticket. And the strategies for Kwik are an order or two more flawed than the duds on metatron - just progress with the attendant factors.
And if the reason is a factory defect?
The same function on the same input data should give the same result.
Proof that there is no defect:
1. Complete binary match of the files of the sold robot with the purchased ones
2. Equality of backtest results of seller before sale and buyer after purchase with the same parameters of the robot
To protect yourself from getting a robot especially matched to a certain period of history, the buyer should be able to order a backtest from the seller, for any possible (available) period. And based on the results make a decision about the purchase. After the purchase, see p1 p2.