agracer said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

---

I don't think that's correct.

If you sign a PO without it referencing terms, and they're sent to you only later after the PO is signed, the terms are not part of the contract.

The battle of the forms is the exchange of terms prior to the PO being signed.

---

You can send order acknowledgement with additional t&cs. Last man response wins. Have to deal with this daily in our business. There is no contract until the order is accepted, and the new terms being sent with order acknowledgment are considered a counter offer.

We may be saying the same things in terms of signing a PO. But when we receive POs from customers we acknowledge them with our terms regardless of what their PO says. If they don't counter our counter, they have accepted our terms and the contract is formed. It's no different than them sending terms with their PO different than the ones on our proposal

---

First, a disclaimer: I am not your lawyer and am not giving legal advice.

Now, back to the discussion.

Your facts state a key difference, and one that I assume that is spelled out in the PO? My guess is that there are lots of other details of the transactions you are familiar with that make them unique.

The standard for contract formation is when someone makes an offer and the other party accepts. If I make an unconditional offer, and you accept, I can't then send you new terms and expect you to be bound by them.

If however, my offer has language expressly making it conditional on my final acceptance of the contract, then the parties have, by agreement, shifted the point of contract formation. My offer is not really an offer, but a request for an offer from you on the terms set out in the PO. Your "acceptance" is, in essence, an offer.

If new terms are sent are sent out after an unconditional offer has been accepted, then, on those facts alone, there is no new consideration for those new terms and are unenforceable. Otherwise, vendors could be sending out new terms for years after the purchase.

Finally, there's been no evidence at all so far in this thread what JD's actual terms are and when they were presented to the buyers.

---

if someone sends me a signed contract with the T&C's attached, they can't later send me a new set of T&C's and say "last man wins". Not sure in what industry that's acceptable (in the US anyway, dealing with some foreign countries, a fully signed and executed contract is called the 1st draft).

---

I think what Zobel may have been talking about was when a party signs and accepts a PO with terms but sends the PO back with its own terms instead. That is not an acceptance of a contract, but a new offer. It is not binding or valid unless and until the initial offeror accepts the new terms.

Yes, this.

The point before the sidetrack was that a person might write a PO to JD, with whatever terms they like, and JD might acknowledge the order with their own terms attached. If that's where it ends, and you proceed with receipt of goods or payment, you accept their terms. No signing of their terms or special further agreement required.

Some serious Farmer's fight in this thread.

Rhetorical, that is.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

---

Yep
Very selective and predictable.
Wonder if he dialed that phone number?

That guy's ability to economically farm is not John Deere's problem. They're in business to make money and provide ROI to stockholders, not make sure farmers stay in business.

They offer a product on their terms. If those terms aren't agreeable, then farmers should go buy something else. They don't HAVE to buy a JD piece of equipment. If push came to shove, they could go farm by hand if they had to. Is it economical? No. Is that their problem and not JD's? Yep. If it's such a big deal, then why don't they sell their equipment and buy from another manufacturer? It's not like JD has the market 100% cornered on tractors, combines, etc. Farmers continue to buy JD equipment because despite all of JD's licensing and terms, they find their product the most economical, not because there is no possible alternative.

For all the people here who *****, moan and complain about "big government" picking winners and losers, here it is. Farmers and JD both have a right to voluntarily enter a contract or sales agreement. JD has a business model that farmers don't like, and farmers are free to walk away. However, farmers feel entitled to that JD equipment and have gone to big daddy government to force JD to sell on more favorable terms instead of buying elsewhere and letting the market do that. Now, JD is being told how they can sell and license their products to make it more agreeable to farmers who still have the option to just go somewhere else, even if it isn't their preferred option. IMO, it's no different than the woke alphabet crowd demanding that businesses sell whatever they want to them on their terms, regardless of whether the business wants to or not.

aTmAg said:

---

rab79 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

rab79 said:

---

So your argument boils down to "crippleware" is valid IP...

---

I have a ring camera to look at my dogs in the house. I don't pay them for the feature of letting me go back in time to see old recordings. So they cripple that functionality. I am fine with that because I don't want to pay the monthly fee. Is Ring somehow evil because of this?

No.

---

your camera still performs the function you want it to right? so not crippled at all.

---

You got it. I knew you would come around.

---

unsurprisingly you didn't, when the combine or tractor doesn't go down the field because of the "software" it is crippled.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

That guy's ability to economically farm is not John Deere's problem. They're in business to make money and provide ROI to stockholders, not make sure farmers stay in business.

They offer a product on their terms. If those terms aren't agreeable, then farmers should go buy something else. They don't HAVE to buy a JD piece of equipment. If push came to shove, they could go farm by hand if they had to. Is it economical? No. Is that their problem and not JD's? Yep. If it's such a big deal, then why don't they sell their equipment and buy from another manufacturer? It's not like JD has the market 100% cornered on tractors, combines, etc. Farmers continue to buy JD equipment because despite all of JD's licensing and terms, they find their product the most economical, not because there is no possible alternative.

For all the people here who *****, moan and complain about "big government" picking winners and losers, here it is. Farmers and JD both have a right to voluntarily enter a contract or sales agreement. JD has a business model that farmers don't like, and farmers are free to walk away. However, farmers feel entitled to that JD equipment and have gone to big daddy government to force JD to sell on more favorable terms instead of buying elsewhere and letting the market do that. Now, JD is being told how they can sell and license their products to make it more agreeable to farmers who still have the option to just go somewhere else, even if it isn't their preferred option. IMO, it's no different than the woke alphabet crowd demanding that businesses sell whatever they want to them on their terms, regardless of whether the business wants to or not.

---

aTmAg's sock is in the house

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

this thread...holy crap.

just one big giant combine fire.

---

Probably a Case combine!

---

the deeres catch fire more frequently than the case machines. Its usually in the area of the feed accelerator or the exhaust system when it regenerates. Why would you put a part on the back of a machine that regularly heats up to 1500 degrees while it is covered in light, dry flammable material? Maybe deere will figure it out the next time they copy someone else's combine design.

my john deere tractor has a grand total of 2 wires. good luck hooking your laptop up to it!



I doubt my local deere dealer has any techs that know how to start it.

EskimoJoe said:

---

my john deere tractor has a grand total of 2 wires. good luck hooking your laptop up to it!



I doubt my local deere dealer has any techs that know how to start it.

---

poppin johnny, used to rake my fil's hay with one of those. Spinning the flywheel was always fun, for a given value of fun.

So serious question: when can I expect places other than JD to be able to hook up to my relatively new 3025E?

I'm not having problems, but I'm not a big fan of JD's customer service.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

That guy's ability to economically farm is not John Deere's problem. They're in business to make money and provide ROI to stockholders, not make sure farmers stay in business.

They offer a product on their terms. If those terms aren't agreeable, then farmers should go buy something else. They don't HAVE to buy a JD piece of equipment. If push came to shove, they could go farm by hand if they had to. Is it economical? No. Is that their problem and not JD's? Yep. If it's such a big deal, then why don't they sell their equipment and buy from another manufacturer? It's not like JD has the market 100% cornered on tractors, combines, etc. Farmers continue to buy JD equipment because despite all of JD's licensing and terms, they find their product the most economical, not because there is no possible alternative.

For all the people here who *****, moan and complain about "big government" picking winners and losers, here it is. Farmers and JD both have a right to voluntarily enter a contract or sales agreement. JD has a business model that farmers don't like, and farmers are free to walk away. However, farmers feel entitled to that JD equipment and have gone to big daddy government to force JD to sell on more favorable terms instead of buying elsewhere and letting the market do that. Now, JD is being told how they can sell and license their products to make it more agreeable to farmers who still have the option to just go somewhere else, even if it isn't their preferred option. IMO, it's no different than the woke alphabet crowd demanding that businesses sell whatever they want to them on their terms, regardless of whether the business wants to or not.

---

Tell me you know nothing about farming without telling me you know nothing about farming. You go first

Farming the soil is much harder than farming the taxpayers for military spending.

agracer said:

---

. The reason so many disagree with you is because your reading comprehension is terrible. Also, your wrong a lot but dig you heels in, refuse to concede then move the goal posts. You're the right wing version of KeithDB.

---

LOL

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

That guy's ability to economically farm is not John Deere's problem. They're in business to make money and provide ROI to stockholders, not make sure farmers stay in business.

They offer a product on their terms. If those terms aren't agreeable, then farmers should go buy something else. They don't HAVE to buy a JD piece of equipment. If push came to shove, they could go farm by hand if they had to. Is it economical? No. Is that their problem and not JD's? Yep. If it's such a big deal, then why don't they sell their equipment and buy from another manufacturer? It's not like JD has the market 100% cornered on tractors, combines, etc. Farmers continue to buy JD equipment because despite all of JD's licensing and terms, they find their product the most economical, not because there is no possible alternative.

For all the people here who *****, moan and complain about "big government" picking winners and losers, here it is. Farmers and JD both have a right to voluntarily enter a contract or sales agreement. JD has a business model that farmers don't like, and farmers are free to walk away. However, farmers feel entitled to that JD equipment and have gone to big daddy government to force JD to sell on more favorable terms instead of buying elsewhere and letting the market do that. Now, JD is being told how they can sell and license their products to make it more agreeable to farmers who still have the option to just go somewhere else, even if it isn't their preferred option. IMO, it's no different than the woke alphabet crowd demanding that businesses sell whatever they want to them on their terms, regardless of whether the business wants to or not.

---

It will be JD's problem if they don't have any more customers.

Most of my friends ARE switching to Kubota, or something else orange/blue/red.

I travel all over working with agriculture specialists and farmers in the US and abroad.

We argue and disagree on a lot of things in the process.

Nothings brings us together better for a good laugh than hot takes on farming from forum 16.