> ??? You still possess the glasses. Nothing was stolen from you. The company is merely turning off their servers on their property.
Which hypothetical are we talking about, in every hypothetical involving replacement cost the device was either
- Stolen, this would fall under your local theft statute.
- Destroyed via an over the air update, this would fall under your local destruction of property statute, and would arguably fall under the CFAA federally in the US (I assume there is a similar Canadian law).
Notably neither of these hypotheticals are the other hypothetical (and as I said previously likely what actually happened) of them turning off online services.
> Specific performance is a rare remedy, and would never be imposed when monetary damages are easy to calculate, as they are in this situation: you paid X for glasses, so X are your damages.
This is not the case. Specific performance is a common remedy for unique devices/services that cannot be repurchased. Moreover "you paid X so your damages are X" is simply incorrect. It is "you cannot repurchase the services at this time so your damages are entirely unclear". If the company sold the services at less than the cost of the services (which is the logical implication of them deciding it is cheaper to attempt to refund you instead of continuing to run the servers), that is their problem not yours (under the assumption that you have a contract requiring them to continue to provide it).
Which hypothetical are we talking about, in every hypothetical involving replacement cost the device was either
- Stolen, this would fall under your local theft statute.
- Destroyed via an over the air update, this would fall under your local destruction of property statute, and would arguably fall under the CFAA federally in the US (I assume there is a similar Canadian law).
Notably neither of these hypotheticals are the other hypothetical (and as I said previously likely what actually happened) of them turning off online services.
> Specific performance is a rare remedy, and would never be imposed when monetary damages are easy to calculate, as they are in this situation: you paid X for glasses, so X are your damages.
This is not the case. Specific performance is a common remedy for unique devices/services that cannot be repurchased. Moreover "you paid X so your damages are X" is simply incorrect. It is "you cannot repurchase the services at this time so your damages are entirely unclear". If the company sold the services at less than the cost of the services (which is the logical implication of them deciding it is cheaper to attempt to refund you instead of continuing to run the servers), that is their problem not yours (under the assumption that you have a contract requiring them to continue to provide it).