Originally Posted by ZombieSmash
Scan quite clearly describes it as a 60hz monitor, you don't get to pick and choose the descriptions which suit your argument, a marketing representation is construed as a whole, and Scan's description explicitly states "up to 100hz" via overclocking.
I actually think you are over simplifying, I live in a Commonwealth country with very similar trade and consumer laws to the UK, and the fact that 100hz is mentioned somewhere in an advertisement does not guarantee you anything when it is caveated with the words "up to".
Scan ALSO quite clearly describe it as "100Hz in OC mode"... so how is that made redundant by them saying the opposite? You seem to forget that the law is on the side of the consumer here, as it always is, despite most people thinking otherwise. It's the RESELLER that can't pick and choose how a product is marketed. They can't say 100Hz in one place, and then get around that by something else elsewhere! Can you imagine how much abuse that would be open to?! A reseller could literally say anything about a product to sell it, then hide the truth in the small print. There has clearly been a mistake made with the X34... either 100Hz IS guaranteed and there will be no issues exchanging, or it's not and the resellers need to change the wording across ALL their marketing/advertising materials... and yes, that instruction would need to come from Acer, and it obviously hasn't otherwise it would have been stated. Maybe that will change, who knows, but as of right now, consumer law/trade description is quite clear (in the UK). It has to be consistent, clear and accurate to the purchaser. At the moment, it is not, but still in favour of the consumer if they receive a monitor that does not achieve 100hz because several resellers and the info they are providing gives this impression. So yes, maybe we will see the descriptions change, but that doesn't apply to orders made before (and if) that happens.
Originally Posted by ZombieSmash
And there is no reason why that argument would apply to other hardware component but not a monitor.
I've mentioned this before but there is an obvious reason... it would be near impossible to prove or argue that an HD/CPU wasn't capable of an advertised 'up to' speed... and in most cases it probably would be, with the right set-up and ideal conditions, even if it only managed it for a microsecond. That's the loop hole, and that's all it is... 'up to' is not a legal term, it's too vague. There is no such loop hole with a monitor... it either works or it doesn't. It won't matter what GPU you're using, how expensive your cable is, or what temperature your room is at... if it won't get past 90Hz, it will NEVER get past 90Hz, and actually won't function AT ALL beyond that speed. The loop hole in the 'up to' argument is precisely because with the vast majority of components/devices it's a nebulous often even fluctuating figure... this does not apply to a monitor, so it's far more straightforward, especially in absence of any further conditions or caveats, and in addition to how it's being advertised. Acer literally need to be saying here that 100Hz is not guaranteed if that is the case.Edited by atomicus - 9/19/15 at 6:29am