However this is a pointless distraction leading away from the point which was that the fanboy insists that founders pack purchases are a donation for the development of the game ( and persists in doing this, repeatedly ) I want to make sure that this lie is not perpetuated.
Like I said.. assuming there is a statute to cover your said rights which in this case there were none. So you can only rely on the goodwill of the Judge to interpret things your way
Fanboy I believed found a better way of calling it. Instead of donation, I think he/she is considering lease as a better choice of word after that small correction of mine.
Like I said.. assuming there is a statute to cover your said rights which in this case there were none. So you can only rely on the goodwill of the Judge to interpret things your way
Fanboy I believed found a better way of calling it. Instead of donation, I think he/she is considering lease as a better choice of word after that small correction of mine.
I've still found no evidence that the EULA as agreed to on installation, pertains to anything other than the software being installed. If i could find it and read it ( on my PC rather than on their website ) then I'd determine for myself if it covered later purchases. Which is what the conversation was about. if it doesn't then that's another moot point. There is certainly no new agreement or reminder offered to peruse when new purchases are being made.
I absolutely refuse to accept that my agreeing to an EULA for the installation of software covers my dealings with that company in perpituity.
I've still found no evidence that the EULA as agreed to on installation, pertains to anything other than the software being installed. If i could find it and read it ( on my PC rather than on their website ) then I'd determine for myself if it covered later purchases. Which is what the conversation was about. if it doesn't then that's another moot point. There is certainly no new agreement or reminder offered to peruse when new purchases are being made.
EULA need not be on your pc. It is sufficient that you agree via clicking "I AGREE" regardless whether you read it or not. So you have no choice but to actually read it on the website.
Sigh.. I'll assist you this one time... S9 - Subject to these Terms and any applicable EULA, PWE grants to you, for your noncommercial and personal use only, a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable and nonsublicensable license to access and use the Service and the Proprietary Materials.
They are quite smart when they mention 'Service and the Proprietary Materials" because the definition may extend to sales of any products or services past, current and present. I forward your attention to s5, because it lists down their range of propriety materials whether expressed or implied.
Also, the contract expressedly mention under s25 that - This Agreement is governed by and shall be construed and enforced under the laws of the State of California, without applying any conflicts of law principles which would require application of the law of any other jurisdiction.
As you agreed to EULA when you pressed "I AGREE" you also agree to which law your rights are under. In this case, the UK law may not apply to you. Sorry to say under California law... your rights are rather... unprotected.
ok time to sleep =3= it's almost 6am here. I shall read whatever replies made tomorrow and do my best to respond in a satisfactory manner. nites.
As you agreed to EULA when you pressed "I AGREE" you also agree to which law your rights are under. In this case, the UK law may not apply to you. Sorry to say under California law... your rights are rather... unprotected.
Only if you live in the US. Otherwise local jurisdiction may make matters much more tricky.
Only if you live in the US. Otherwise local jurisdiction may make matters much more tricky.
Actually there are several factors to consider for the court to decide which jurisdiction your case falls under. Agreement to which jurisdiction location in a contract are one of the factors. I will not go into it in detail as the long arm jurisdiction requires in depth discussion. Which is why i said "the UK law MAY not apply to you", instead of "WILL not". Case in point Navig8 Pte Ltd v. Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry.
pressexpose1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
@Xumina. As I said, i'm in the UK. The EULA means nothing in a dispute. I don't need you to quote parts from the agreement to me. I want to read it for myself. I want to read it on my PC because that's the version I will have supposedly agreed to. Or how can I know which version of terms i have most recently ticked? You know how often these things change.
That's why I want to see a copy of the terms on my PC.
And my point remains. The EULA does not appear to cover subsequent purchases of goods, tangible or otherwise. ( nor can it if it's in the case of Zen )
I think you are pushing too far just to make me wrong. Newsflash: I'll be as wrong as you want me to be and be glad of the education. I still need to determine my position by reading the agreement I have made. Not the one you have found.
@Xumina. As I said, i'm in the UK. The EULA means nothing in a dispute. I don't need you to quote parts from the agreement to me. I want to read it for myself. I want to read it on my PC because that's the version I will have supposedly agreed to. Or how can I know which version of terms i have most recently ticked? You know how often these things change.
That's why I want to see a copy of the terms on my PC.
And my point remains. The EULA does not appear to cover subsequent purchases of goods, tangible or otherwise. ( nor can it if it's in the case of Zen )
I think you are pushing too far just to make me wrong. Newsflash: I'll be as wrong as you want me to be and be glad of the education. I still need to determine my position by reading the agreement I have made. Not the one you have found.
Those appear to have changed since I installed the game. I don't think that's allowed. oh dear. I feel a letter coming on
again, I want to see the terms I agreed to at installation, in an EULA on my PC at the time of installation. Just like every other game on my PC seems to have.
Those appear to have changed since I installed the game. I don't think that's allowed. oh dear. I feel a letter coming on
again, I want to see the terms I agreed to at installation, in an EULA on my PC at the time of installation. Just like every other game on my PC seems to have.
It truly is standard practice, there is always some tech shyster or ten tweaking EULA, Blizzards changes about one every two days. :P
Those appear to have changed since I installed the game. I don't think that's allowed. oh dear. I feel a letter coming on
again, I want to see the terms I agreed to at installation, in an EULA on my PC at the time of installation. Just like every other game on my PC seems to have.
Oh dear, a letter!
Calm down, don't do anything rash now that you may regret later!
Fact is this. It is their game, everything in the game is their property, even your character is their property.
You can try and do a lawsuit and be laughed at and just end up wasting money. Any real lawyer will tell you it's not worth your time and not winnable, and any scumbag lawyer will just take your money, try, fail, and laugh his way to the bank.
Just adding my two cents. I find the game fun. But the F2p model was not what I expected. I will continue to play, maby, only because I enjoy it so much. But I will not start another F2P game any more.
The companies have sunk this model fairly quickly. It is not about getting items equivalent of 15dollars a month, it is much morse than that.
0
Options
pressexpose1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
It truly is standard practice, there is always some tech shyster or ten tweaking EULA, Blizzards changes about one every two days. :P
It's not standard practice. It's actually a legal requirement that you offer any changes as new terms to your customer. That's why Blizzard are continually asking you to re-agree to terms and making sure that you scroll to the end to do so.
You can't change the terms of anything without informing all parties without it becoming null and void. You can walk away from any contract whereby one party changes the terms to which you initially agreed, without penalty, or fault. This applies to employment as well as business.
You really think someone can get you to agree to a contract then change it later? What, " Oh sorry yeah, we changed that and you can't do <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> for 10 years with another company, did nobody mention it? "
nonsense. All changes in a contract of any description need to be ratified by both parties every time it happens.
0
Options
pressexpose1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Calm down, don't do anything rash now that you may regret later!
Fact is this. It is their game, everything in the game is their property, even your character is their property.
You can try and do a lawsuit and be laughed at and just end up wasting money. Any real lawyer will tell you it's not worth your time and not winnable, and any scumbag lawyer will just take your money, try, fail, and laugh his way to the bank.
don't make a fool of yourself. I've worked in privacy advocacy for a number of years now. The letter would be simply to review if any new terms have been agreed to. this is how grown up's do things. No need for a lawyer, just an education.
It's a click wrap agreement... it need not be in your PC as you would be expected by the court to take the initiative to save a copy yourself, like i did. Also changes might be permitted so to speak since it's in their clause as u probably can read for yourself. EULA means a lot in a dispute more then you give credit for, because when you registered an account you "agree" to the terms and condition stipulated in EULA. It is a valid offer of a contract and acceptence of the said contract and hence you are legally bound by the terms and conditions unless proven otherwise. You have also been a consumer of their product by 179 hours which in terms of a reasonable man's test subject to the court's interpretation, might be sufficient period for you to figure out if the contract is misrepresented or not. Also if EULA does not mean a thing, you would actually be illegally leasing their product since you were not given the license to actually lease their products for your own use.
Before you continue about how it needs to be in your PC...please research click wrap agreement. Now I really need to sleep T_T
It's not standard practice. It's actually a legal requirement that you offer any changes as new terms to your customer. That's why Blizzard are continually asking you to re-agree to terms and making sure that you scroll to the end to do so.
You can't change the terms of anything without informing all parties without it becoming null and void. You can walk away from any contract whereby one party changes the terms to which you initially agreed, without penalty, or fault. This applies to employment as well as business.
You really think someone can get you to agree to a contract then change it later? What, " Oh sorry yeah, we changed that and you can't do <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> for 10 years with another company, did nobody mention it? "
nonsense. All changes in a contract of any description need to be ratified by both parties every time it happens.
As an info to you readers that is actually very true.
For the current subject of discussion however if you observed their last date of revision was: May 29, 2012..... unless you have been playing Neverwinter since before 29th May 2012, I doubt there's a difference in EULA. It is also standard legal practice for MMORPG to inform players about any changes in EULA and ask if they agree to the change. As shown in games such as AION. Unless you can prove there has been a changed in EULA without your consent or knowledge, feel free to send a letter, as it is an obvious malicious breach of contractual ethics.
It's a click wrap agreement... it need not be in your PC as you would be expected by the court to take the initiative to save a copy yourself, like i did. Also changes might be permitted so to speak since it's in their clause as u probably can read for yourself. EULA means a lot in a dispute more then you give credit for, because when you registered an account you "agree" to the terms and condition stipulated in EULA. It is a valid offer of a contract and acceptence of the said contract and hence you are legally bound by the terms and conditions unless proven otherwise. You have also been a consumer of their product by 179 hours which in terms of a reasonable man's test subject to the court's interpretation, might be sufficient period for you to figure out if the contract is misrepresented or not. Also if EULA does not mean a thing, you would actually be illegally leasing their product since you were not given the license to actually lease their products for your own use.
Before you continue about how it needs to be in your PC...please research click wrap agreement. Now I really need to sleep T_T
go to bed. it's not click-wrap. It was never a wrapped product. I think that's what you would prefer it to be. However you still can't change the terms of an end user license without asking the end user to agree to it again. Simple good practice. Blizzard do it all the time. I've not seen that since I installed this game months ago.
you still don't comprehend that this is the UK and I'm protected by our consumer rights, which are about as good as it gets.
and for anyone else reading one post and going off on one. I've made no claims, threats or indications of legal recourse. i've merely enjoyed a conversation about law and semantics.
So I'll save you the trouble now. Pull your neck in.
0
Options
pressexpose1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
As an info to you readers that is actually very true.
For the current subject of discussion however if you observed their last date of revision was: May 29, 2012..... unless you have been playing Neverwinter since before 29th May 2012, I doubt there's a difference in EULA. It is also standard legal practice for MMORPG to inform players about any changes in EULA and ask if they agree to the change. As shown in games such as AION. Unless you can prove there has been a changed in EULA without your consent or knowledge, feel free to send a letter, as it is an obvious malicious breach of contractual ethics.
Quite right. My mistake.
I mistook that date for 2013. Which is kind of what I was basing my objections on. Thanks for the correction.
Calm down, don't do anything rash now that you may regret later!
Fact is this. It is their game, everything in the game is their property, even your character is their property.
You can try and do a lawsuit and be laughed at and just end up wasting money. Any real lawyer will tell you it's not worth your time and not winnable, and any scumbag lawyer will just take your money, try, fail, and laugh his way to the bank.
Any real lawyer will tell you both the pro and con of the case. Lawsuits can be as trivial as a chicken being sued in court for crowing at the wrong time. True about the scumbag lawyer thing though lol...
go to bed. it's not click-wrap. It was never a wrapped product. I think that's what you would prefer it to be. However you still can't change the terms of an end user license without asking the end user to agree to it again. Simple good practice. Blizzard do it all the time. I've not seen that since I installed this game months ago.
you still don't comprehend that this is the UK and I'm protected by our consumer rights, which are about as good as it gets.
and for anyone else reading one post and going off on one. I've made no claims, threats or indications of legal recourse. i've merely enjoyed a conversation about law and semantics.
So I'll save you the trouble now. Pull your neck in.
Actually, you are wrong. Click wrap/Click through agreement is an agreement whereby the the terms for the download and use of software over the Internet are agreed by via clicking.
You cannot be protected by laws which does not exist or is insufficient. A simple thing really, can you point to me anywhere in the UK statue which states protection of consumer rights for contractual agreement of a virtual/digital product? Should there be none, your perceived rights can only be established via interpretation by courts of any existing statutes to encompass digital products. It's not how I say so, but rather that's how the courts in UK work. The agreement refers to the Californian Law as the jurisdiction of the contract or any disputes arising to it, because of that the UK court would need to consider other factors at hand before deciding if your rights are protected by UK law or Californian Law...(Navig8 Pte Ltd v. Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry) because of that it is not a certainty that you will be protected by your consumer rights even if it exists.
And yes I too made no claims, threats and/or indications of legal recourse and/or advice. I merely corrected some mistakes earlier by a poster and somehow it expanded into a legal discussion. Regardless as a legal practitioner, I too enjoyed the conversation about law and semantics. If readers decide to include themselves, the most I will do is to correct any mistakes or agree to anything correct.
OK sleep for real now. I'll reply whatever I see when I wake up.
Anyone who spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it would have realized the $60 pack was a far better value than the $200 pack.
It boggle my mind how many people shell out the $200 expecting to get a good financial return. Hint: they arn't making you pay $200 in order to give you good value for your money.
0
Options
pressexpose1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Actually, you are wrong. Click wrap/Click through agreement is an agreement whereby the the terms for the download and use of software over the Internet are agreed by via clicking.
You cannot be protected by laws which does not exist or is insufficient. A simple thing really, can you point to me anywhere in the UK statue which states protection of consumer rights for contractual agreement of a virtual/digital product? Should there be none, your perceived rights can only be established via interpretation by courts of any existing statutes to encompass digital products. It's not how I say so, but rather that's how the courts in UK work. The agreement refers to the Californian Law as the jurisdiction of the contract or any disputes arising to it, because of that the UK court would need to consider other factors at hand before deciding if your rights are protected by UK law or Californian Law...(Navig8 Pte Ltd v. Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry) because of that it is not a certainty that you will be protected by your consumer rights even if it exists.
And yes I too made no claims, threats and/or indications of legal recourse and/or advice. I merely corrected some mistakes earlier by a poster and somehow it expanded into a legal discussion. Regardless as a legal practitioner, I too enjoyed the conversation about law and semantics. If readers decide to include themselves, the most I will do is to correct any mistakes or agree to anything correct.
I will, tomorrow. I'm not being responsible for sending you pages of acts and amendments when you are already hours late for bed. I'm neither troll nor monster
I will, tomorrow. I'm not being responsible for sending you pages of acts and amendments when you are already hours late for bed. I'm neither troll nor monster
Look forward to it.. since I think I am the only one or the few who actually keeps EULA and read them before pressing agree.... nites or morning more likely...
Look forward to it.. since I think I am the only one or the few who actually keeps EULA and read them before pressing agree.... nites or morning more likely...
I felt that $60 pack a much better deal and bought it. Honestly, I felt the $200 package was a pretty terrible deal. PWE is pretty expensive in their zen prices, except for slots, where $5.00 for two seems like a great deal to me. I ended up spending $65 and getting five slots.
Well if you made your billing with the EU branch, then we would need to look at a few factors.
Article 60 EU Brussels I Regulation states that in order for you have the possibility to sue a foreign parent company in the UK/EU you would need to consider if the said company's products have a substantial UK market and can be paid for in pound sterling, then this could establish that the parent company has it 'principal place of business' in the UK and therefore, considered more then just a branch in the UK.
We can also consider doctrine of forum non conveniens - Latin: not in agreement with the judicial forum. Under this doctrine, several factors would have to be weighed by a foreign court (an English court in this case). These factors would consider the position of the parties in relation to attendance of court proceedings, the likelihood of the consumer retaining counsel in the UK and enforcement etc. (The Spiliada case per Lord Goff; and Connelly v RTZ)
Another way around the jurisdictional issue after considering that PWE may have a branch in UK is to sue PWE in the US in pursuance of the 'choice of jurisdiction clause'. Assuming that judgment is awarded against PWE in the US, the claimant can try to enforce a foreign judgment in English courts providing there is a 'presence' of the business in both the UK and the US. (Adams v Cape Industries).
What you need to consider is that you are a voluntary creditor when you did the click-through agreement. The courts in the UK are torn in between 2 faction, those that supports freedom of contract and those that do not. In the UK freedom of contract are mere public policy (Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson) and those in support of freedom of contract would tout for the conclusiveness of the 'choice of jurisdiction' clause. Those that do not however would simply observe the true construction of the contract." to deny company their 'choice of jurisdiction' clause. (Levison v. Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd.)
Ultimately whether your case will be adjudicated in the UK or in the US depends greatly on the mercy of the Justices in UK, even if you were to made payment only to the EU branch of the company.
EULAs are worthless as I have to accept the contact after I've made the purchase. In England, due to this, the EULA has no standing in law.
You accept the contract BEFORE you register an account, not after you made purchase. Get your facts straight. EULA must be reasonably made present before you make an account or else the account you made and the things you buy and the things you have in your "illegal" account are all illegal stolen items. It's a myth that EULA is a US thing. EULA exists all over the world micro edited to suit the country it exists in since EULA means End User License Agreement, and EULA is a contract like it or not.
If you actually read our posts all over this thread, you would have come across me saying that despite there being arguments, reports and etc by consumer groups and academics, there have been no action as of yet by the courts and/or legislator with regards to the issue of EULA being an unfair contract. Due to this, regardless how the consumer group feels about EULA, it is still a legally binding contract so long as the conditions to form a valid contract are met whereby in a simplistic manner, all elements of a contract are met. Scholars of law will know that the elements of a valid legally binding contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation". Such agreement is arguably concluded the moment you click "I Agree" when you register an account as the court would assume you to have read the terms and conditions. Since you agree to the contract you imply also that you agree to the unfair nature of the contract and hence, you made yourself legally bounded to the terms and conditions state in EULA.
Comments
Like I said.. assuming there is a statute to cover your said rights which in this case there were none. So you can only rely on the goodwill of the Judge to interpret things your way
Fanboy I believed found a better way of calling it. Instead of donation, I think he/she is considering lease as a better choice of word after that small correction of mine.
I've still found no evidence that the EULA as agreed to on installation, pertains to anything other than the software being installed. If i could find it and read it ( on my PC rather than on their website ) then I'd determine for myself if it covered later purchases. Which is what the conversation was about. if it doesn't then that's another moot point. There is certainly no new agreement or reminder offered to peruse when new purchases are being made.
I absolutely refuse to accept that my agreeing to an EULA for the installation of software covers my dealings with that company in perpituity.
EULA need not be on your pc. It is sufficient that you agree via clicking "I AGREE" regardless whether you read it or not. So you have no choice but to actually read it on the website.
Sigh.. I'll assist you this one time... S9 - Subject to these Terms and any applicable EULA, PWE grants to you, for your noncommercial and personal use only, a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable and nonsublicensable license to access and use the Service and the Proprietary Materials.
They are quite smart when they mention 'Service and the Proprietary Materials" because the definition may extend to sales of any products or services past, current and present. I forward your attention to s5, because it lists down their range of propriety materials whether expressed or implied.
Also, the contract expressedly mention under s25 that - This Agreement is governed by and shall be construed and enforced under the laws of the State of California, without applying any conflicts of law principles which would require application of the law of any other jurisdiction.
As you agreed to EULA when you pressed "I AGREE" you also agree to which law your rights are under. In this case, the UK law may not apply to you. Sorry to say under California law... your rights are rather... unprotected.
ok time to sleep =3= it's almost 6am here. I shall read whatever replies made tomorrow and do my best to respond in a satisfactory manner. nites.
Only if you live in the US. Otherwise local jurisdiction may make matters much more tricky.
Actually there are several factors to consider for the court to decide which jurisdiction your case falls under. Agreement to which jurisdiction location in a contract are one of the factors. I will not go into it in detail as the long arm jurisdiction requires in depth discussion. Which is why i said "the UK law MAY not apply to you", instead of "WILL not". Case in point Navig8 Pte Ltd v. Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry.
Ok I shall go to sleep for real now.. toodles...
That's why I want to see a copy of the terms on my PC.
And my point remains. The EULA does not appear to cover subsequent purchases of goods, tangible or otherwise. ( nor can it if it's in the case of Zen )
I think you are pushing too far just to make me wrong. Newsflash: I'll be as wrong as you want me to be and be glad of the education. I still need to determine my position by reading the agreement I have made. Not the one you have found.
http://www.perfectworld.com/about/terms
stop distracting me T_T sleeeeeepppp 6:30am
Those appear to have changed since I installed the game. I don't think that's allowed. oh dear. I feel a letter coming on
again, I want to see the terms I agreed to at installation, in an EULA on my PC at the time of installation. Just like every other game on my PC seems to have.
It truly is standard practice, there is always some tech shyster or ten tweaking EULA, Blizzards changes about one every two days. :P
Oh dear, a letter!
Calm down, don't do anything rash now that you may regret later!
Fact is this. It is their game, everything in the game is their property, even your character is their property.
You can try and do a lawsuit and be laughed at and just end up wasting money. Any real lawyer will tell you it's not worth your time and not winnable, and any scumbag lawyer will just take your money, try, fail, and laugh his way to the bank.
The companies have sunk this model fairly quickly. It is not about getting items equivalent of 15dollars a month, it is much morse than that.
It's not standard practice. It's actually a legal requirement that you offer any changes as new terms to your customer. That's why Blizzard are continually asking you to re-agree to terms and making sure that you scroll to the end to do so.
You can't change the terms of anything without informing all parties without it becoming null and void. You can walk away from any contract whereby one party changes the terms to which you initially agreed, without penalty, or fault. This applies to employment as well as business.
You really think someone can get you to agree to a contract then change it later? What, " Oh sorry yeah, we changed that and you can't do <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> for 10 years with another company, did nobody mention it? "
nonsense. All changes in a contract of any description need to be ratified by both parties every time it happens.
don't make a fool of yourself. I've worked in privacy advocacy for a number of years now. The letter would be simply to review if any new terms have been agreed to. this is how grown up's do things. No need for a lawyer, just an education.
I've had to click I agree to it a few different times already.
You have too or you wouldn't be playing the game.
Before you continue about how it needs to be in your PC...please research click wrap agreement. Now I really need to sleep T_T
As an info to you readers that is actually very true.
For the current subject of discussion however if you observed their last date of revision was: May 29, 2012..... unless you have been playing Neverwinter since before 29th May 2012, I doubt there's a difference in EULA. It is also standard legal practice for MMORPG to inform players about any changes in EULA and ask if they agree to the change. As shown in games such as AION. Unless you can prove there has been a changed in EULA without your consent or knowledge, feel free to send a letter, as it is an obvious malicious breach of contractual ethics.
go to bed. it's not click-wrap. It was never a wrapped product. I think that's what you would prefer it to be. However you still can't change the terms of an end user license without asking the end user to agree to it again. Simple good practice. Blizzard do it all the time. I've not seen that since I installed this game months ago.
you still don't comprehend that this is the UK and I'm protected by our consumer rights, which are about as good as it gets.
and for anyone else reading one post and going off on one. I've made no claims, threats or indications of legal recourse. i've merely enjoyed a conversation about law and semantics.
So I'll save you the trouble now. Pull your neck in.
Quite right. My mistake.
I mistook that date for 2013. Which is kind of what I was basing my objections on. Thanks for the correction.
Any real lawyer will tell you both the pro and con of the case. Lawsuits can be as trivial as a chicken being sued in court for crowing at the wrong time. True about the scumbag lawyer thing though lol...
You are welcome... ok SLEEEEEEPPP
Actually, you are wrong. Click wrap/Click through agreement is an agreement whereby the the terms for the download and use of software over the Internet are agreed by via clicking.
You cannot be protected by laws which does not exist or is insufficient. A simple thing really, can you point to me anywhere in the UK statue which states protection of consumer rights for contractual agreement of a virtual/digital product? Should there be none, your perceived rights can only be established via interpretation by courts of any existing statutes to encompass digital products. It's not how I say so, but rather that's how the courts in UK work. The agreement refers to the Californian Law as the jurisdiction of the contract or any disputes arising to it, because of that the UK court would need to consider other factors at hand before deciding if your rights are protected by UK law or Californian Law...(Navig8 Pte Ltd v. Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry) because of that it is not a certainty that you will be protected by your consumer rights even if it exists.
And yes I too made no claims, threats and/or indications of legal recourse and/or advice. I merely corrected some mistakes earlier by a poster and somehow it expanded into a legal discussion. Regardless as a legal practitioner, I too enjoyed the conversation about law and semantics. If readers decide to include themselves, the most I will do is to correct any mistakes or agree to anything correct.
OK sleep for real now. I'll reply whatever I see when I wake up.
It boggle my mind how many people shell out the $200 expecting to get a good financial return. Hint: they arn't making you pay $200 in order to give you good value for your money.
I will, tomorrow. I'm not being responsible for sending you pages of acts and amendments when you are already hours late for bed. I'm neither troll nor monster
Look forward to it.. since I think I am the only one or the few who actually keeps EULA and read them before pressing agree.... nites or morning more likely...
be advised.
All my transactions have been with:
Merchant
Perfect World Europe B.V.
billing.eu@perfectworld.com
+31 188834****8
This will become significant to jurisdiction.
And for christ's sake, goodnight
This is an open beta. Start treating it like one.
Well if you made your billing with the EU branch, then we would need to look at a few factors.
Article 60 EU Brussels I Regulation states that in order for you have the possibility to sue a foreign parent company in the UK/EU you would need to consider if the said company's products have a substantial UK market and can be paid for in pound sterling, then this could establish that the parent company has it 'principal place of business' in the UK and therefore, considered more then just a branch in the UK.
We can also consider doctrine of forum non conveniens - Latin: not in agreement with the judicial forum. Under this doctrine, several factors would have to be weighed by a foreign court (an English court in this case). These factors would consider the position of the parties in relation to attendance of court proceedings, the likelihood of the consumer retaining counsel in the UK and enforcement etc. (The Spiliada case per Lord Goff; and Connelly v RTZ)
Another way around the jurisdictional issue after considering that PWE may have a branch in UK is to sue PWE in the US in pursuance of the 'choice of jurisdiction clause'. Assuming that judgment is awarded against PWE in the US, the claimant can try to enforce a foreign judgment in English courts providing there is a 'presence' of the business in both the UK and the US. (Adams v Cape Industries).
What you need to consider is that you are a voluntary creditor when you did the click-through agreement. The courts in the UK are torn in between 2 faction, those that supports freedom of contract and those that do not. In the UK freedom of contract are mere public policy (Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson) and those in support of freedom of contract would tout for the conclusiveness of the 'choice of jurisdiction' clause. Those that do not however would simply observe the true construction of the contract." to deny company their 'choice of jurisdiction' clause. (Levison v. Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. Ltd.)
Ultimately whether your case will be adjudicated in the UK or in the US depends greatly on the mercy of the Justices in UK, even if you were to made payment only to the EU branch of the company.
You accept the contract BEFORE you register an account, not after you made purchase. Get your facts straight. EULA must be reasonably made present before you make an account or else the account you made and the things you buy and the things you have in your "illegal" account are all illegal stolen items. It's a myth that EULA is a US thing. EULA exists all over the world micro edited to suit the country it exists in since EULA means End User License Agreement, and EULA is a contract like it or not.
If you actually read our posts all over this thread, you would have come across me saying that despite there being arguments, reports and etc by consumer groups and academics, there have been no action as of yet by the courts and/or legislator with regards to the issue of EULA being an unfair contract. Due to this, regardless how the consumer group feels about EULA, it is still a legally binding contract so long as the conditions to form a valid contract are met whereby in a simplistic manner, all elements of a contract are met. Scholars of law will know that the elements of a valid legally binding contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation". Such agreement is arguably concluded the moment you click "I Agree" when you register an account as the court would assume you to have read the terms and conditions. Since you agree to the contract you imply also that you agree to the unfair nature of the contract and hence, you made yourself legally bounded to the terms and conditions state in EULA.