gbghg
L.O.T.I.S.
1143
   |
Posted - 2013.04.14 14:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:Ryder Azorria wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Ryder Azorria wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:If you "acquired" the Merc Pack through gameplay, rather than purchasing it online through PSN or Gamestop (or in-store in the case of Gamestop), this would be relevant. I don't know of anyone who did, so it's not at all applicable to the Merc Pack in any situation that I've heard of as a possibility.
The purchase agreement is legally binding REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY EULA CONTENT MIGHT STATE ABOUT CCP'S RIGHT TO CHANGE THINGS.
There's significant legal precedent in many countries - including CCP's chosen jurisdiction - for EULAs to be overruled by purchase agreements. By my own local laws, even the EULA's claim to apply British law can't be enforced when I'm questioning something in the purchase agreement, and my local laws (which are almost identical to British law anyway) are applicable. And by those laws, I'm entitled, regardless of the contents of any post-purchase EULA, or even a pre-purchase EULA that was made separate from the purchase itself, to what I was offered when I bought the product. While I don't have access to the resources to disprove you, and while I know that there is precedent for EULAs being overruled, I kinda doubt you have legal precedent for this exact scenario, ie. "explicitly signing away any previous or future legal rights in this matter with a legally binding document" - though if there is, wtf?! Purchase agreements are also legally binding, and are legally binding OUTSIDE of the limitations of EULAs, which are only binding within the confines of the purchased product. When you buy a Merc Pack, that purchase agreement - which includes the product description at the time of purchase - supercedes any EULA because it's applicable outside of the content itself, while the EULA isn't. Someone who agreed to the EULA before buying the Merc Pack is still legally entitled to what the Merc Pack description said at the time of purchase, in spite of them having "no legal rights" with regard to the content of the beta. The Merc Pack purchase occured OUTSIDE the beta, so any EULA relating to the beta is irrelevant. To be honest. if I were actually a member of CCPs legal team, instead of arguing this out, I would have long since advised them to do the following: At the time of commercial release, offer all players the one time option to have any and all aurum, real money items (merc packs, armoured assault packs, etc.) and special event items (Skinweave suits, Exile AR etc.) refunded to their account (refunded in this case meaning returned the the item redeeming system, NOT a cash refund) in exchange for a full reset - SP, ISK, items, everything. This satisfies any and all legal requirements pertaining to the matter regardless of which agreement supersedes which, even though I doubt many will take the offer. Its also a **** move and seen as bullying.
how so? it would fufill the "legal requirements" you guys are arguing about, and it would mean that people who brought merc packs but don't want them refunded at the cost of a reset would be fine |