Kingdoms SecuRom discussion - forum rules only

[Didz]

Who deleted my post? was nothing wrong with it. BTW I was not reffering to contract laws, only merchantile laws (or whatever they're called in English). You do not buy the game, you buy the right to use it. (same with all other software unless you're informed otherwise)

No English court would accept this view when dealing with the purchase of a game.

I agree entirely that most commercial software is purchased in this way.

If I decide I need to instal MS Office on 500 PC's as part of a commercial project I would simple ring MS Sales and order a 500 user license. I would also order as many master disks as I needed to ensure that there were enough for the installation teams. But this would be two seperate orders and thus two seperate contracts.

However, if I were to walk into PC World this afternoon to buy myself a copy of MS Office, merely select the box from the shelf, go to the checkout and pay £120 for it. PC World don't ask me how many licenses I want, nor would they be happy if I simply walked out the store without paying on the grounds that I already had a license to use the product and merely needed a spare installation disk.

Likewise, a kid going into Game to buy a copy of Bioshock doesn't for a minute believe he is buying anything else other than a box containing the game. The shop assistant does nothing to explain that in fact the box, the CD and the manual are free and all he is paying for is the right to use it.

Therefore, the contract is for the purchase of the game and all its components not the right to play the game.

To test this theory just try walking into PC World or Game taking a game off the shelf and walking out without paying. I doubt any store will allow you to do this even if you can prove you don't own a Pc and so have no way of using the software.

"You can only buy this car, if you allow me to use it next week to rob a bank." is a bad example b/c the contract involves criminal intent.

How was this a bad example. It was intended to illustrate that a contract cannot bind either party to comply with terms involving an illegal action, and you seem to have grasped this point very well.

The point being that any contract which requires the purchaser to accept that his system will hacked by the supplier is equally not binding because that too is an illegal act.