These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

@CCP - breach of national laws

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#201 - 2012-05-03 03:29:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Fannie Maes wrote:


It is not a legally binding contract by law, in the US last trial about that had the judge throw the case out. In the EU it has already been declared to violate existing law.

Welcome to the idiot club.

I also do not have to go to one of those places to sue them, I can sue them in any country they operate in as selling their products and services, that includes all of the EU, just FYI that's all!


The EULA is a legally-binding contract for the service provided. It's why the vast majority of big businesses that offer services have these as a requirement to agree to. The contract is thrown out by the court if and when the provisions of the contract violate the law or does not meet the minimum elements needed to count as a valid contract.

This is from my business law class here in US.

Quote:
E-CONTRACTS REFER TO THOSE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH ADAPT TRADITIONAL CONTRACTING STANDARDS, RULES, AND REQUIREMENTS, TO MEET THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF COMMERCIAL CYBERSPACE TRANSACTIONS.
THE STANDARD CONTRACT RULES OF OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, CONSIDERATION STILL APPLY TO E-CONTRACTS, HOWEVER, HOW THEY ARE MANIFESTED AS HISTORICAL RECORDS MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL PAPER RECORDS.

ONLINE OFFERS INCLUDES CHECK BOXES INDICATING THAT BUYER ACCEPTS ALL TERMS OF THE SELLER’S OFFER;
SCREENS OUTLING THE PAYMENT PROVISIONS;
SCREENS OUTLING THE REFUND AND RETURN POLICIES;
DISCLAIMERS OF LIABILITY;
REMEDIES FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS;
STATEMENTS ON HOW THE BUYER’S INFORMATION WILL BE USED;
PROVISIONS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION.


Quote:
Online Acceptance

CLICK-ON BOXES ARE RECOGNIZED AS AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE OFFER;
AGREEMENTS ARE RECOGNIZED WHEN THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRODUCT WHEN DELIVERED BY ONLINE ORDERS;
STANDARD CONTRACTING PRINCIPLES APPLY TO ONLINE ACCEPTANCE WHERE A CONTRACT’S TERMS ARE FINALIZED UPON THE BUYER EXECUTING THE ACCEPTANCE IN THE DESIGNATED MANNER. LATER ADDED TERMS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE BUYER.
SPECHT VS NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORP. (PG 260).


Book: [Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2009). Fundamentals of business law: Summarized
cases. (9th Ed.) Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
ISBN-13: 978-1111530-624[/quote]

I don't know which trial you are referring to that caused the EULA/TOS to be thrown out, and therefore I am interested in knowing the link for that so I can research it.

===EDIT===

A key thing to remember regarding the case on Specht vs. Netscape is that the reason the TOS was tossed out by the court and ruled in favor of the plaintiff was because of the fact that the TOS were not conspicuous before the plaintiff downloaded the free software.

If you look at the EULA/TOS given to you when you try to access Eve Online for the first time upon launching the client, you will see the EULA/TOS pop up in front of you and it will NOT let you continue unless you accept what is written and it will not let you accept unless you read what is written by virtue of the requirement to scroll down the whole text in order to accept. This implies that you have READ the EULA/TOS and therefore you agree to it. Therefore, this is a legally binding contract.

===EDIT 2===

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-murphy/the-bargain-relationship/specht-v-netscape-communications-corporation/

This is another reference to the Specht vs. Netscape case.

Adapt or Die
Ares Renton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#202 - 2012-05-03 04:04:11 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Aren't alliance mails those things sent to dozens of anonymous strangers at the same time?

"You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms."

Looks like you agreed already


Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#203 - 2012-05-03 04:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Fannie Maes
Henry Haphorn wrote:

This is from my business law class here in US.



Your business class is wrong, it does not hold up in a court of law in the US and both in the EU and states like California it violates existing law and is therefore not legal or considered a signed contract.

Again... sorry!


edit: They are allowed to deny you service, FOR ANY reason (with a few exceptions,) according to existing law, regardless of TOS and EULA. Anything they can do is in accordance with actual law, the rest of EULA and TOS is not. Of course I can demand a refund if you deny me service.

Again, you are wrong!


edit 2, let me explain, EULA and TOS is information, whatever is legal in the EULA and TOS informed you of the law, at best case scenario they can be a means to make sure you cannot deny knowing about existing laws. It is however not a contract, it is impossible to be a contract, it can't be a contract, EVER! Anything else in a TOS and EULA that is not in accordance with existing law for everything has no meaning.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#204 - 2012-05-03 04:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Fannie Maes wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:

This is from my business law class here in US.



Your business class is wrong, it does not hold up in a court of law in the US and both in the EU and states like California it violates existing law and is therefore not legal or considered a signed contract.

Again... sorry!


Can you please post a link to the case, or at least name the case for me so I can Google it, that mentions that a EULA/TOS of any kind is not a legally-binding contract?

===EDIT===

Read the source I'm citing at the bottom of my post that consists of a wall of text.

Adapt or Die
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#205 - 2012-05-03 04:10:55 UTC
Ares Renton wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Aren't alliance mails those things sent to dozens of anonymous strangers at the same time?

"You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms."

Looks like you agreed already


Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.


Then how are you able to play the Eve Client in the first place?

Adapt or Die
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2012-05-03 04:15:52 UTC
Ares Renton wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
[...]

Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.

I don't really want to get into the discussion, but playing the game after bypassing or declining the EULA would be illegal, or implies acceptance...

... so trying to sue CCP for breaching your privacy would be the stupidest of all dumbarse ideas

Also Fannie I think part of the EULA is that any dispute has to be in a court in Iceland
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#207 - 2012-05-03 04:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Fannie Maes
Benny Ohu wrote:
Ares Renton wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
[...]

Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.

I don't really want to get into the discussion, but playing the game after bypassing or declining the EULA would be illegal, or implies acceptance...

... so trying to sue CCP for breaching your privacy would be the stupidest of all dumbarse ideas

Also Fannie I think part of the EULA is that any dispute has to be in a court in Iceland



A) it is not illegal, but pointless Lol perhaps CCP would object and deny that person service but they would lose a complaint for reimbursement.

B) Not true at all, if they lose a dispute and break law in a country where they offer service in let's say the UK then they can enjoy being denied to conduct business in all of EU even. Same goes for the US, you can file a suit in any state there, it would hurt Business operating there.

edit; in any case this whole thread is stupid and pointless, OP is wrong and the ones arguing that EULA and TOS is a binding contract are also wrong, peace.

PS: Your business class is wrong!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2012-05-03 04:20:20 UTC
Actually I really really don't want to talk about this why did I ever reply to this thread

You're all wrong, all of you

And that's the truth right there
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#209 - 2012-05-03 04:29:34 UTC
Fannie Maes wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Ares Renton wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
[...]

Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.

I don't really want to get into the discussion, but playing the game after bypassing or declining the EULA would be illegal, or implies acceptance...

... so trying to sue CCP for breaching your privacy would be the stupidest of all dumbarse ideas

Also Fannie I think part of the EULA is that any dispute has to be in a court in Iceland



A) it is not illegal, but pointless Lol perhaps CCP would object and deny that person service but they would lose a complaint for reimbursement.

B) Not true at all, if they lose a dispute and break law in a country where they offer service in let's say the UK then they can enjoy being denied to conduct business in all of EU even. Same goes for the US, you can file a suit in any state there, it would hurt Business operating there.

edit; in any case this whole thread is stupid and pointless, OP is wrong and the ones arguing that EULA and TOS is a binding contract are also wrong, peace.

PS: Your business class is wrong!


Please cite the case or I will ignore everything you said up until now and from now on.

Adapt or Die
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#210 - 2012-05-03 04:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fannie Maes
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Ares Renton wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
[...]

Actually, I always click decline, so I'm not bound by that.

I don't really want to get into the discussion, but playing the game after bypassing or declining the EULA would be illegal, or implies acceptance...

... so trying to sue CCP for breaching your privacy would be the stupidest of all dumbarse ideas

Also Fannie I think part of the EULA is that any dispute has to be in a court in Iceland



A) it is not illegal, but pointless Lol perhaps CCP would object and deny that person service but they would lose a complaint for reimbursement.

B) Not true at all, if they lose a dispute and break law in a country where they offer service in let's say the UK then they can enjoy being denied to conduct business in all of EU even. Same goes for the US, you can file a suit in any state there, it would hurt Business operating there.

edit; in any case this whole thread is stupid and pointless, OP is wrong and the ones arguing that EULA and TOS is a binding contract are also wrong, peace.

PS: Your business class is wrong!


Please cite the case or I will ignore everything you said up until now and from now on.


Nope, I wont, I welcome you to ignore me forever because I enjoy watching dumb business students graduate and if lucky work as my bank teller looking jelly when they see my bank account.
Ferria
Outsourced Manufacturing
#211 - 2012-05-03 05:43:17 UTC
You do understand that there are no international privacy laws, so CCP would only need to comply with laws from Iceland, the US, China, and the UK as these are the places they operate. Just because you access their service from somewhere else does not force those laws on them.
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#212 - 2012-05-03 05:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Fannie Maes
Ferria wrote:
You do understand that there are no international privacy laws, so CCP would only need to comply with laws from Iceland, the US, China, and the UK as these are the places they operate. Just because you access their service from somewhere else does not force those laws on them.



It does if they offer the service there and wish to continue doing so, also if they operate in the UK they have to abide by the EU as well, in all EU states.


Now you know...


Now you know........


PS: there are no international privacy laws, does not have to be either since there are such laws in Iceland and every single nation in the west basically. But they do not apply here, obviously.
Shian Yang
#213 - 2012-05-03 05:48:54 UTC
Fannie Maes wrote:
Ferria wrote:
You do understand that there are no international privacy laws, so CCP would only need to comply with laws from Iceland, the US, China, and the UK as these are the places they operate. Just because you access their service from somewhere else does not force those laws on them.



It does if they offer the service there and wish to continue doing so, also if they operate in the UK they have to abide by the EU as well, in all EU states.


Now you know...


Now you know........


Greetings capsuleer Maes,

It is useful to have a leg before you try standing. As capsuleer Haphorn has requested; can you please cite the case you were referring to earlier for those of us curious in the facts - rather than random, inventive lies?

Regards,

Shian Yang
Fannie Maes
Doomheim
#214 - 2012-05-03 06:12:17 UTC
Shian Yang wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:
Ferria wrote:
You do understand that there are no international privacy laws, so CCP would only need to comply with laws from Iceland, the US, China, and the UK as these are the places they operate. Just because you access their service from somewhere else does not force those laws on them.



It does if they offer the service there and wish to continue doing so, also if they operate in the UK they have to abide by the EU as well, in all EU states.


Now you know...


Now you know........


Greetings capsuleer Maes,

It is useful to have a leg before you try standing. As capsuleer Haphorn has requested; can you please cite the case you were referring to earlier for those of us curious in the facts - rather than random, inventive lies?

Regards,

Shian Yang


Greetings, Yeah, they are all lies, to think a person signs a contract by clicking a button and not reading it and that contract can contain anything including that you just sold them your grandmother, to think you don't have to follow any laws in the country you sell your product or offer your service inRoll To think the UK is outside EU law and that CCP is only liable in Iceland. To think there are no trade agreements and laws between countries, yep, all lies, I must have attended a bad business school...


All lies.

Peace Lol
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#215 - 2012-05-03 07:13:37 UTC
Fannie Maes wrote:

It is not a legally binding contract by law, in the US last trial about that had the judge throw the case out. In the EU it has already been declared to violate existing law.

Welcome to the idiot club.

I also do not have to go to one of those places to sue them, I can sue them in any country they operate in as selling their products and services, that includes all of the EU, just FYI that's all!


Shrinkwrap EULA's aren't binding, but ones where you actively subscribe to a service certainly are.

Welcome to the idiot club, I made you some tea.
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#216 - 2012-05-03 07:16:55 UTC
Fannie Maes wrote:

Greetings, Yeah, they are all lies, to think a person signs a contract by clicking a button and not reading it and that contract can contain anything including that you just sold them your grandmother, to think you don't have to follow any laws in the country you sell your product or offer your service inRoll To think the UK is outside EU law and that CCP is only liable in Iceland. To think there are no trade agreements and laws between countries, yep, all lies, I must have attended a bad business school...


CCP is only legally liable in the countries they have a corporate presence in. (Including the EU through the UK). Certainly you can try to bring a suit against them in other countries, but what happens when you win?
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#217 - 2012-05-03 07:29:20 UTC
Fannie Maes wrote:
Nope, I wont, I welcome you to ignore me forever because I enjoy watching dumb business students graduate and if lucky work as my bank teller looking jelly when they see my bank account.


Tell us about your kickboxing supermodel girlfriend :allears:
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#218 - 2012-05-03 07:40:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Doctor Ungabungas
Fannie Maes wrote:

edit 2, let me explain, EULA and TOS is information, whatever is legal in the EULA and TOS informed you of the law, at best case scenario they can be a means to make sure you cannot deny knowing about existing laws. It is however not a contract, it is impossible to be a contract, it can't be a contract, EVER! Anything else in a TOS and EULA that is not in accordance with existing law for everything has no meaning.


Tell us what makes it not a contract. Roll

Ed: That is, which particular aspect of this bilateral agreement makes it not lawful but is also not covered under the severance clause.
CatreX Nolen
Doomheim
#219 - 2012-05-03 07:42:14 UTC
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:
Fannie Maes wrote:

edit 2, let me explain, EULA and TOS is information, whatever is legal in the EULA and TOS informed you of the law, at best case scenario they can be a means to make sure you cannot deny knowing about existing laws. It is however not a contract, it is impossible to be a contract, it can't be a contract, EVER! Anything else in a TOS and EULA that is not in accordance with existing law for everything has no meaning.


Tell us what makes it not a contract. Roll



I'm also curious how it's not a contract.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#220 - 2012-05-03 12:24:24 UTC
It is interesting to see that Capsuleer Fannie Maes, whose name is a funny reference to a mortgage insurance company that facilitated the crash of the US housing market - Fannie Mae, has not only failed to produce the case he referenced that would have clearly explained how a EULA/TOS was not considered a legally binding contract but has also willingly refused to produce said case.

Therefore, I will ignore Capsuleer Fannie Maes and so should everyone else.

Oh, and by the way. If someone does try to sue CCP over this eve-mail incident, then this will qualify as a civil trial and the jurisdiction and venue of the civil trial, according to US laws, will depend specifically as to where the defendant lives or operates (not where it's headquartered). Therefore, the court that has jurisdiction over this theoretical case would be a civil court and venue located in Atlanta in George closest to where CCP's Atlanta office is operating. The trial would not be in California as Capsuleer Fannie Maes seems to imply.

Fannie, I suggest you read a ******* book regarding law for once.

Adapt or Die