Is Kabam in breach of their own TOS by having item stash?

2»

Comments

  • SirnoobSirnoob Posts: 952
    edited August 2017
    U think u found some sort of loopal and expect compensation I'm simply telling you kabam has covered itself

    Belive what u want mate wish u the best
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 11,860
    68gxz95w8b4x.png
    1rvn3koeh94s.png
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Sirnoob wrote: »
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Sirnoob wrote: »
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    it is one thing for them to eliminate an item. that would be for say discontinuing an item.... removing it from the store for example. but to have a potion expire that came as a part of a deal i used my real world money for seems very much to go against the TOS....
    @Sirnoob i can understand where you are coming from to a point. yes they do have the right to modify anything in anyway they want. however anything they change must however fall within the TOS. if it falls outside the TOS then the TOS must be modified to cover said change or else it is invalid. it seems to me as the TOS was written before there was an item stash and then when they decided too add the stash they never modified the TOS.
    would really love to hear kabams side
    @Kabam Miike

    If u read what I posted u would see further down it says they control the right to REGULATE see that's the key word REGULATE now pretty sure item caps falls under that if u don't think so and think you have any legal standing go ahead try and sue
    Think of it like this kabam says you can only have X in ur inv for X amount of time this is them regulating items
    Just like if ur parents say u can only play a game for X amount of time there regulating ur video game usage
    Sorry if I can off like a **** I suck at explainin legal things and try to keep it simple

    Was never saying i was gunna sue them... merely asking the question... i just see that yes they have the right to modify etc however they by modifying in such a manner as expiration that clearly breaches a previous point in the TOS.

    Also @GroundedWisdom to say it is their product and they can never be in breach of their own product is incorrect. The TOS are alwayd to be followed by the operatort and the user. It is just as much so we know what they can and cant do as we are agreeing to allow them to do what it sates as it is to control wat we can and cant do. It would be like saying the government can do whatever they want cus they set the laws. They may try but the laws always hold up....

    BOI READ WHAT I SAID AND THINK FOR A SEC WHAT IS REGUALTING AND WHAT IS ITEM CAP

    EXPIRING IS ANOTHER FORM OF (fill in the blank)

    yes expiring is a form of regulating you are correct on on that point. please do not be rude and yell at me in capitals and please do not insult and condescend me with the use of a racist term "BOI". i have not been rude or disrespectful to you please extend the same courtesy unto myself.

    however as the TOS clearly states "cannot expire" this cannot be an acceptable form or regulating. there is no question here about the cap itself that is all good. it is the fact they state not expire yet here we are with expiring items. regulating would need to be done via a different method.

    The expiration is part of the regulating. It ensures that a certain amount is held and used. I can assure you, they are well within their rights to place a time limit on what we hold in the Stash.
    As for the comment, I'm not sure how I see that as being racist. It's slang.

    boy is a racist term.... however not arguing that here the rest of the comment was still very aggressive and condescending.
    but regardless that is not the point here. i still would like to hear from kabam on this as cannot expire clearly means only one thing and that is cannot expire. as much as they can regulate anything however they want they have clearly stated they cannot expire.
    not having a go at you but are you a laywer? do you have a law background?

    You're searching for a violation of their own TOS for having an expiry on items in the Stash. I don't need to be a Lawyer to see the holes in that question.
    This is not the first time someone has misinterpreted the TOS. Quite frankly, there is no law or rule that says they can't have an expiration on stored Items. You do not buy said Items. You rent or borrow the lease to use them. They are, and remain, property of Kabam. Now, if you understand that there is a limit to how much you can hold or store, and you purchase more than you plan to use in the time allotted to the Stash, the onus is on you. You're misinterpreting what the statement refers to. Here are a couple areas you seem to have missed. You are borrowing the limited license to said Items, you do not own them, and they reserve the right to regulate them. There is no legal grounds for implying they are in violation for having an expiration on stored Items. Resources in the game are limited and regulated as they see fit, and they are well within their rights to do so. I am not a Lawyer. I just have a good base knowledge on Law.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    edited August 2017
    @Sirnoob and @GroundedWisdom
    i do not understand why both of you are attacking me as if i have hit a raw nerve with you guys.
    i have never said i intend to sue anybody for anything here. you guys are coming across as being very agressive and very defensive of kabam and their TOS here.
    and for one if you go back and read my original post you will be able to clearly see that it was a question. and asking for peoples thoughts. ie creating a discussion. not me intending to sue them.
    and i am not missing anything. i can totally see how you do not own anything. hense why they can so easily ban your account. i can see how they have the right to modify and regulate anything as they see fit.

    it is purely the fact the they say "cannot expire" yet they way they chose top regulate is through expiry....
    the limited number in inventory is in no way an issue. that falls well within the terms of regulating. i think you are missing the point that saying "cannot expire" in black and white means exactly that. it means they cannot "regulate via means of expiration. it is plain and simple.
    if someone says i can do anything i want but i cant do "X" means that they can do everything with the exception of x.
    that is where kabams TOS is at here. it says they can regulate however they want but not have things expire.
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,283
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    edited August 2017
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    site references the the game as a whole
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,283
    It's a pretty pointless topic as nothing will change an is clearly just creating arguments.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    It's a pretty pointless topic as nothing will change an is clearly just creating arguments.
    i certainly was not intending to create arguments......
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,283
    Am sure you didn't but some people just cause arguments in most threads they join in on an that's almost all
  • Mainer123Mainer123 Posts: 319
    What about if you spent real money on the cat deal going on and it went to stash and expired. ??? Which could happen. And u used real money for it
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    Mainer123 wrote: »
    What about if you spent real money on the cat deal going on and it went to stash and expired. ??? Which could happen. And u used real money for it

    Thats exactly the reason i am questioning it.
  • Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 11,860
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    @Sirnoob and @GroundedWisdom
    i do not understand why both of you are attacking me as if i have hit a raw nerve with you guys.
    i have never said i intend to sue anybody for anything here. you guys are coming across as being very agressive and very defensive of kabam and their TOS here.
    and for one if you go back and read my original post you will be able to clearly see that it was a question. and asking for peoples thoughts. ie creating a discussion. not me intending to sue them.
    and i am not missing anything. i can totally see how you do not own anything. hense why they can so easily ban your account. i can see how they have the right to modify and regulate anything as they see fit.

    it is purely the fact the they say "cannot expire" yet they way they chose top regulate is through expiry....
    the limited number in inventory is in no way an issue. that falls well within the terms of regulating. i think you are missing the point that saying "cannot expire" in black and white means exactly that. it means they cannot "regulate via means of expiration. it is plain and simple.
    if someone says i can do anything i want but i cant do "X" means that they can do everything with the exception of x.
    that is where kabams TOS is at here. it says they can regulate however they want but not have things expire.

    No one is attacking you. Not on my end. It's a Forum. When you make a Post, people are free to debate. It's the idea presented that is being discussed. You're implying that they are in violation of their own rules by having an expiration on their own Items. I'm pointing out the flaws in that theory. It has nothing to do with you personally. They are not in violation of anything. I'm trying to point out that you're hyper focused on one line and missing the rest of the rule. There's nothing personal in that. The fact is, there is no rule being broken by a time limit on how many Items you can hold in your Stash. It's the same as having an Item Cap. This is done to regulate. As it clearly states, the Items are their property, and they have all rights to it. There's no way they are in violation of anything.
  • SirnoobSirnoob Posts: 952
    Still not sure when I personally attacked u mate if i offended u in some way I apoligize
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

    I do agree with everything you are saying. With the exception that the clear cut wording "cannot expire" must overide their right to regulate. As they have specifically stated that expiry is a mannet in ehoch regulation will not happen. I believe they are covered for any other form of regulation.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    Sirnoob wrote: »
    Still not sure when I personally attacked u mate if i offended u in some way I apoligize

    It is possible that i took some of your comments the wrong way however when you type in capitals it certainly comes across as being very agressive.
  • SirnoobSirnoob Posts: 952
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Sirnoob wrote: »
    Still not sure when I personally attacked u mate if i offended u in some way I apoligize

    It is possible that i took some of your comments the wrong way however when you type in capitals it certainly comes across as being very agressive.

    It was me trying to highlight certain parts of a statement
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 11,860
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

    I do agree with everything you are saying. With the exception that the clear cut wording "cannot expire" must overide their right to regulate. As they have specifically stated that expiry is a mannet in ehoch regulation will not happen. I believe they are covered for any other form of regulation.

    Nothing overrides the fact that they clearly state that you have no right or ownership to it. It's their property. They have the right to regulate it however they see fit.
  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    edited August 2017
    Nothing overrides the fact that they clearly state that you have no right or ownership to it. It's their property. They have the right to regulate it however they see fit.

    So what you are saying is that the line that clearly states "cannot expire" is a total null and void point resulting in a complete lie in the TOS. which would make the TOS null and void. Which means we can do whatever we want ie cheat just as they can do whatever they want ie delete our accounts. And there is nothing at all that anyone could do. So then what even is the point of a TOS.

    The TOS is meant to be there to basically say we want you to operate within our guidelines, this is what we will and wont do... and if you break the TOS then goodbye to you...
  • Maat1985 wrote: »
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

    I do agree with everything you are saying. With the exception that the clear cut wording "cannot expire" must overide their right to regulate. As they have specifically stated that expiry is a mannet in ehoch regulation will not happen. I believe they are covered for any other form of regulation.

    In other words, you are a proponent of singling out sentences out of paragraphs(s) and ignoring the rest of the content in order to make a point.

    One of your forum players did the same thing with one of Kabam's offers. I do not recall the exact details of the offer itself but the offer had about 5 items in it. He only talked about 3 of the five in order to mislead the readers into believing that the $20 offer was overpriced. He deliberately ignored the one item that cost about as much as the offer itself when purchased separately.

    In any event, the other sentences in section 7 aren't the only content you chose to ignore. You also chose to ignore section 4 where it states:
    4. Right to Modify. We reserve the right, at any time, to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Websites, the Materials, the Services, or any part or parts thereof with or without notice. You agree that Kabam will not be liable to you or to any third party for any such modification, suspension, or discontinuation.

    I would classify the word "expiry" to be included in the meaning of the word "discontinue" as in discontinue with notice. So you knew this already (correct?) by the time you reached section 7. I would think that you read the sections in order.

  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

    I do agree with everything you are saying. With the exception that the clear cut wording "cannot expire" must overide their right to regulate. As they have specifically stated that expiry is a mannet in ehoch regulation will not happen. I believe they are covered for any other form of regulation.

    In other words, you are a proponent of singling out sentences out of paragraphs(s) and ignoring the rest of the content in order to make a point.

    One of your forum players did the same thing with one of Kabam's offers. I do not recall the exact details of the offer itself but the offer had about 5 items in it. He only talked about 3 of the five in order to mislead the readers into believing that the $20 offer was overpriced. He deliberately ignored the one item that cost about as much as the offer itself when purchased separately.

    In any event, the other sentences in section 7 aren't the only content you chose to ignore. You also chose to ignore section 4 where it states:
    4. Right to Modify. We reserve the right, at any time, to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Websites, the Materials, the Services, or any part or parts thereof with or without notice. You agree that Kabam will not be liable to you or to any third party for any such modification, suspension, or discontinuation.

    I would classify the word "expiry" to be included in the meaning of the word "discontinue" as in discontinue with notice. So you knew this already (correct?) by the time you reached section 7. I would think that you read the sections in order.

    dont speak down to me and treat me like an idiot. i read the whole thing from start to finish. dont assume that i did not. i understand the english language perfectly and i am not seperating out 1 thing individually.
    as i said yes they can modify, discontinue whatever.... but discontinue refers to no longer offering something not removing what is already in existance.
    but the point remains that they cant have stuff expire if they say it will not expire.
    lets put this in a form that you all here may understand.
    i am going to give you 50 x $2 coins...... i am allowed to take them back and/or exchange them, for anything i want at any time.
    i will not ever exchange them for lego bricks.

    so now i can take them from you.... i swap them for $1 coins, or $5 notes or 20c coins. what i cant do is take the coins from you and give you pieces of lego. i can do anything else except for that.
  • some people are trying so hard to become a kabam employee, i wont name names, but we all no the people im referring 2
  • Maat1985 wrote: »
    Maat1985 wrote: »
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    Site probably references your inventory an not the stash, things in your inventory cannot expire

    Site items refers to " virtual items for use exclusively within the Websites and Services ". This would include any virtual items in the stash since the stash is part of the "Websites and Services".

    So what the OP is claiming is that MCOC violated the terms of service since the very beginning since the stash have been part of the game from the start ("Virtual Currency and Site Items will not expire and will not incur fees for non-use. ").

    Seems rock solid on the argument if one were take one sentence out of a bunch of paragraphs and ignore the rest.

    When taken together with other sentences such as this, "Kabam has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Currency and/or Site Items as it sees fit in its sole discretion," then you will find that the TOS wasn't violated.

    But let's pretend it did for a moment. Let's pretend.

    If taken to court, I doubt they would win anything and would get the USFL treatment.

    This is because people already know that the stash have, for instance, a 30-day limit on certain items. So if the items would expire, it is because the player allowed it and thus did not lose anything (and this is in addition to the TOS clearly stating that items have no value anyway i.e. "have no cash value").

    If a player has a full inventory of cats, bought a package that included cats and those additional cats went to the stash and expired, the player's case would be thrown out of court if it ever went that far. The reason is quite obvious. The player deliberately put items in the stash and then deliberately allowed it to expire. The judge would see this as a case of a stupid player deliberately doing something stupid and then blaming someone else for it.

    I do agree with everything you are saying. With the exception that the clear cut wording "cannot expire" must overide their right to regulate. As they have specifically stated that expiry is a mannet in ehoch regulation will not happen. I believe they are covered for any other form of regulation.

    In other words, you are a proponent of singling out sentences out of paragraphs(s) and ignoring the rest of the content in order to make a point.

    One of your forum players did the same thing with one of Kabam's offers. I do not recall the exact details of the offer itself but the offer had about 5 items in it. He only talked about 3 of the five in order to mislead the readers into believing that the $20 offer was overpriced. He deliberately ignored the one item that cost about as much as the offer itself when purchased separately.

    In any event, the other sentences in section 7 aren't the only content you chose to ignore. You also chose to ignore section 4 where it states:
    4. Right to Modify. We reserve the right, at any time, to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Websites, the Materials, the Services, or any part or parts thereof with or without notice. You agree that Kabam will not be liable to you or to any third party for any such modification, suspension, or discontinuation.

    I would classify the word "expiry" to be included in the meaning of the word "discontinue" as in discontinue with notice. So you knew this already (correct?) by the time you reached section 7. I would think that you read the sections in order.

    dont speak down to me and treat me like an idiot. i read the whole thing from start to finish. dont assume that i did not. i understand the english language perfectly and i am not seperating out 1 thing individually.
    as i said yes they can modify, discontinue whatever.... but discontinue refers to no longer offering something not removing what is already in existance.
    but the point remains that they cant have stuff expire if they say it will not expire.
    lets put this in a form that you all here may understand.
    i am going to give you 50 x $2 coins...... i am allowed to take them back and/or exchange them, for anything i want at any time.
    i will not ever exchange them for lego bricks.

    so now i can take them from you.... i swap them for $1 coins, or $5 notes or 20c coins. what i cant do is take the coins from you and give you pieces of lego. i can do anything else except for that.

    Instead of wasting your time in the forum telling us that you are all butt hurt from our comments, why don't you violate the terms of service yourself and see what happens? It is already obvious that you take sentences out of context and don't bother to read the other sections as well.

    The whole point of your manifesto is to convince us that the TOS is null and void since you said they violated it. Since the terms of meaningless, then it must be okay to not follow it.

    So go ahead and violate the TOS yourself and instead of trying to convince us to do it ourselves. Then you and all the other violators can take them to the court.

    I do give you props for thinking out of the box. Most people who violated the TOS (e.g. account sharers, hackers, and the like) use the "I'm innocent", "I won't do it again, please forgive me" and other similar line of arguments. Other people say that the game "needs" account sharers.

    But you use the stash violates the TOS and thus, the terms are meaningless. Props. I give you props. It was a nice attempt at manipulation. Very well done.

  • Maat1985Maat1985 Posts: 1,541
    edited August 2017
    Instead of wasting your time in the forum telling us that you are all butt hurt from our comments, why don't you violate the terms of service yourself and see what happens? It is already obvious that you take sentences out of context and don't bother to read the other sections as well.

    i am not butt hurt i can tell you who is butt hurt but i dont know that you would like my response so for the benefit of this being a public forum i will leave that alone.
    i am just merely astounded by the lack of knowledge and understanding that people can have yet still seem adamant on giving their opinion and their viewpoint even though it is clear to someone with an understanding that it is flawed and/or narrow minded and/or tunnel visioned.
    what i can guarantee you is that i have a large knowledge of this sort of thing than all of you put together.
    i am not the one here taking anything out of context.
    it is in fact all of you here who are failing to see the big picture.
    i only made one comment mentioning that the TOS was null and void and that was only a smart ass rhetoric to a previous comment by someone.
    so no i would not violate the TOS because i am smarter than that. i enjoy playing this game and want to continue doing so.

    Just do yourself a favour and stop, think, and read. then stop and think again. as it is clear you are failing to see the whole scenario here. first of all all of you cannot understand English as my OP was posed as a question asking for opinion not stating anything along the lines of me wanting to sue them or me saying the TOS is void but merely looking for opinions. i was hoping to find some smarter more informed opinions than i have here but so be it.

    and second of in context of the whole TOS.....
    "we can change and modify anything, we can regulate anything we can do whatever we want and you cant stop us"
    is basically what they say
    they also say
    "site items will not expire"
    which in simple English means
    we can and will do what ever we want but items wont expire.

    so they can tell me i can only have 25 potions all they want. but if they give me 50 potions they then cant make 25 of those expire.
  • Strategic wrote: »
    Sirnoob wrote: »
    Right to Modify. We reserve the right, at any time, to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Websites, the Materials, the Services, or any part or parts thereof with or without notice. You agree that Kabam will not be liable to you or to any third party for any such modification, suspension, or discontinuation.

    True. But then they would also have to change their terms of service. What is written in the terms of service is legally binding as long as it is still written in the terms of service. So as long as it's still saying that they are indeed in breach of their own TOS.
    Kinda like going to the store and buying something that has a price tag of 10$ on it only to get to the register and the cashier tells you that it's actually 50$. The law says if the price tag says it 10$ then they can't sell it for more than that.

    Er no that is wrong. In your example the agreement to sell is not actually agreed until they accept the sale. Its called pecuniary advantage, and they are also allowed human error in the pricing. If they advertise it at a certain price then they have to honour that, but even then they can refuse to accept the sale, as the item is still their until they sell it. Sorry, but this is quoted so many times and it annoys me so much. No offence meant, but I have worked in retail and retail law for 20+ years, this is the correct application

    Now back to Kabam. At the end of the day, its their game and everything in it. The can do what they want and define what is meant by the TOS anyway they want to. No-one is going to sue them re 1 small point that is ambiguous, not unless the person suing has millions of pounds to spend, years to wait and literally has no life at all to chase such a stupid case
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.