Stay away from ePack.

[bqaggie]

I'm going to agree with almost everything you said except the last. You need to watch the documentary "Hot Coffee" and educate yourself about what actually happened in the original case and what happens in most cases like that. You might be shocked.

I've seen it. I know what transpired with Ms. Liebeck. The comment was more of a situational-taken-at-face-value kind of thing...a reference to having/not having common sense.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. Thus common sense would say don't do what she did. That's where that reference would end. (Although every day I say common sense isn't so common)

I'm not belittling the ordeal she had to endure, I'm just making a face-value comparison or reference to KNOWING what you're buying before you buy it. What is this I just pulled? I don't know? Let me research it? I just bought coffee. Why is the cup so hot? Is coffee supposed to be hot? Let me find out.

Or are we going to go into iced coffee & frappucinos as a retort?

 

[webottew]

As others mentioned, some fault on both sides.

However, with Accessibility Acts becoming more prevalent for web content, Upper Deck has an obligation to make the content more specific. Using AODA for Ontario as an example, companies can't assume people will use common sense by looking at the photos. This assumption does not work well for blind people who use Screen Readers. So, Web Developers have to add alternative text attached to the picture to describe what is shown.

Basically, only referencing the text provided and not the image, would you know what you are receiving? Would it not be simplest if UD specified the contents of the pack, rather than expecting the customer to look up exactly what they were getting? Or at least make a better customer experience by providing a link within the card description?

In the end, the customer is responsible for what they are selling/trading, but it's also in UD's best interest to make that experience as smooth and easy as possible.