My friend, I didn't cheat as I don't buy gold, and GREE released the bundle with 2M gold, so ya...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Boa
My friend, I didn't cheat as I don't buy gold, and GREE released the bundle with 2M gold, so ya...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Boa
I didn't cheat either but I probably would've done if I'd known and yes gree mistakenly released a bundle with 2M gold which gave people the opportunity to gain an unfair advantage ergo cheat. Anyway as said let's not get bogged down on definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by LüK€¥
Some one in my new team bought three of the 2M bundle packs, I couldn't help but admire that
There's nothing unfair about it, you bought it as you have money(even though you would know its too good to be true) or you didn't..
I studied Dutch law for a few years, not too long ago, but I never finished it, because I realized I didn't want to become a lawyer, judge or anything like that.
There are several questions;
- Which law is applicable? You can know everything about Dutch law, but nothing about American law.
- At which court should this civil action suit be presented.
- What is the damage done to players, how do you evaluate that?
- Was it players own fault? Was it reasonable?
In Dutch law there is the rule of "redelijkheid en billijkheid" in a contract, which translates loosely to "reasonability and righteousness" (where righteousness should be explained as parties having the intent to make this type of contract with each other). This is probably also the case for most other "western civilizations". When going to court this will result in a weight measurement by a judge (which is a per case evaluation). A judge will always look at parties in this form: "What would/could expect a reasonable man from the contract". If the supermarket forgot to remove a label from the bread-basket saying it's 30 percent off this would ofcourse result in; The supermarket made an error, a reasonable man may expect that that bread is indeed 30 percent off, the reasonable man will get his wish. However, if I try to sell my house for a million, but accidentally the broker sells it for 10k, a judge will decide that it is an unreasonable price for the house and will declare the contract as invalid/never existed.
This will not be different in CC; 2million gold for €/$50 is unreasonable, a reasonable man should have known that. A judge will simply declare the contract as invalid, with good right; it would unbalance the game totally. If you push for your money back Gree will probably do exactly that.
I'm specifically saying here that I don't agree on the banning of players (although Gree probably has the right to do so by their TOS), and my suggestion to Gree would definitely be something like: Give the players who bought the gold 150% of the sum they should have gotten and say you're sorry.
Legally, I definitely wouldn't want to be the lawyer defending the players, he is going to have a really bad time.
All kidding aside, the banning was to put a stop to the orgy of gold spending while they fixed it, not an attempt to punish "cheaters."
Which actually legitimately sounds perfectly reasonable. Except for the last part of Milburn Pennybags post where he implied that the fact that they were taking no further punitive action against those who bought the gold was somehow gree being merciful, and threatened players who dare to continue to "cheat" with permanent bans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
Oh, did he "imply" that? Grow a pair already.
You're actually quite right man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
i show u what the score are after this war, i get screen of team before and now, that not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by montecore
there is a 3m diff IP, not a little thing.
GREES got their self's in a while mess...Quote:
Originally Posted by montecore
Swafles houses top 33 at the moment when they are top 10 last war, eastsiders top 11, need a good spend for enter in top 10. Another team come for top 10 soon. No chance
Maybe wait another bundle, only chance
Maybe its a conspiracy theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by F@st
I have no idea what f@st is talking about...
I know!! So confusing. Can't understand him, poor grammar. Hurts my brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
He's providing play by play cometary for you so enjoy 😊
lol, but we can read though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Fish
Speaking of banned accounts, can we get Baroness, Upsman, and Weasel back up in here?
It's a new year, and I doubt anyone in the current slate of moderators even knows who they are anymore... how about an amnesty?
It seems fair. Bring back the beasts....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
0That What ppl say when they are short for fight me with word.Quote:
Originally Posted by LüK€¥
That strange i dont have any problem with other, only with guys who dont like me or get owned.
1nyway no bundle that back to normal spot. Swafle house have disapared of top dont have see in 200 and eastsiders get there place. 20.30 No need to put screen that just 3/4 vaults ip bh players last time for free.
Plan by gree dont have remove ip that just What I see. I dont have anything about these teams and players
I agree what you say, and am not fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by F@st
I don't remember baroness or upsman so I'd say bring them back. However, I would hope by now they've found other things to occupy their time...Quote:
Originally Posted by LüK€¥
I talk with them every day. Haven't seen weasel though.
I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
I have never seen you own anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by F@st
I believe the rest of your post is essentially stating that you have yet to see gree take any action regarding rankings two wars ago, right?
Fast has pwned you on numerous occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by montecore
Dah dah dahhhhhh..... The Cap returns...Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Torgue
Screen shots or it didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Torgue
As someone said many, many posts ago, this is a mess. It's a combination Dynamite Bar Exam Question/Business Ethics Thing. (BTW Crime Cow, I am an actual lawyer and strongly suspect Dippy is as well based on many of his posts- not that it matters, but you asked).
Anyway, the way I look at this (if anyone cares) is that some low level code boy (or whatever they are called) screwed up. The "erroneous offer" went out. The vast majority of those seeing the bundle offer at issue would know it was a mistake. If they mistakenly did not understand it was a mistake, I guess it was what's known as a "mutual mistake of fact."
As I recall from Law School, the manner in which such is USUALLY rectified judicially is to essentially "call off the deal", and if there are damages that can't justly be erased by that, award them.
Of course I went to law school way before Al Bundy invented the Internet, so wtf do I know?
Now I must also admit that had I come across the offer I may have taken it- several times- but then as Mom once told me, "(I'm)horrible person." It would have been wrong to do so and I would have known that unless I was some relatively new player. Some SAS guy?? Give me a break.
So Gree did not handle a mistake which should never have been made in a perfect world. It was a major league screw up- but was their solution really unreasonable given the relative few who actually mistakenly benefited from the mistake? Even if they were SASers and other golden players?
Easiest solution would have been to give all players 2,000,000 gold (assuming one could only purchase the bundle once).
What would you be saying about that???????
The problem is that would severely aggravate their biggest spenders, which Gree does quite a bit, but I think the aggravation would be so severe that the game couldn't survive. There are people who spend five figures a month on this game to get far less than 2mm gold, and they do it every month or every other month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red BD
Situations like this do happen from time to time in the physical world - and usually, once the sale has gone through and the product has shipped the buyer simply got a great deal. Taking your legal approach a step further, let's say you own a jewelry store and have a watch that costs 500,000 for sale. But due to a price mistake, you have it listed as for sale at 500 dollars.
I go in and buy it for 500 dollars (sold by an employee who wasn't aware of the actual value of the watch), put it on my wrist, and walk out of the store. What is your recourse, legally?
I believe (not being a lawyer) that if you had seen the error before the transaction went through you could have refused the sale. But once the sale is complete, you have my 500 dollars and I have the watch, what are you going to do? Sue me for making a purchase?
I did a little research, poorly since it's completely outside my area of expertise, and I didn't see an answer to that question. I assume if the product were valuable enough, someone would try. I also think the fact that there was no living person to authenticate the sale would be relevant.
Red, since you are an actual lawyer (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but based on the vacuous posts of the other 'attorney' on this forum I'd say you're the only one), how is this instance different than the airlines inadvertently selling $500 tickets for $10 and having to honor the price? This scenario has happened many times in the past, although I'm making up amounts for this hypothesis. I'm assuming they have to honor the price since they could buy off their customers with a gift card and a little negative press, but I don't know if this has ever been legally tested. Your thoughts?
People are still upset about this? ToS clearly states Gree is allowed to do stuff like this any time they want and you agree to that just by having the game installed on your device. There is a simple fix if you don't like it but it doesn't involve Gree at all.
There is something wrong with this example. After you buy the watch, you can resell it or you can use it all day without worrying about the seller might discontinue its function one day. But in CC, you cannot do either of them, as stated in ToS.Quote:
Originally Posted by montecore
So in essence, money players are not buying assets, they are buying the service of playing CC with advantages, which can be modified or cancelled anytime by Gree. If you call it unfair, simply don't pay.
Hmmmmm... good points some, IMO, which is probably why, as Dippy hinted, there may be no hard and fast rule, and why Gree can probably rely on the TOS.
Equitably the thing that jumps out at me in all the cases (except the airline ticket being sold to unwitting passengers)is there seems to be a strong possibility that the allegedly aggrieved knew or reasonably should have known of the mistake.
In the present situation the mistaken offer was apparently tucked away in a $40 Bundle. The Bundles surrounding it were nothing out of the ordinary. The offer pretty much screamed "stupid mistake."
Should people be allowed to benefit from another's stupid mistake? Maybe if it's Gree's mistake and 10,000 gold at issue, but 2,000,000? That amount would tend to negatively impact the game not for Gree, but for poor schmuck players like me who only look at a $40 bundle when I only have $40 to spend, and whose friends are not going to tip me off to its existence either because I have no friends or because I'm not part of a Top Syndicate where word spread to glom onto the glitch (or whatever).
Crime Cow, you have a good point about the airline tickets, albeit not a proportionate one. I doubt you think equity would be served if a court provided the same remedy to Grandma Crime Cow who skimped to buy even the cheap ticket and ended up in 1st Class and to Dippy's Universal Wholesale Ticket Bazaar.Com which purchased 10,000 for resale.
I wouldn't.
Now, I think the title of this thread has real importance. Whose complaining and why did they really buy a $40 bundle?
It's obvious that Gree will never weigh in on this issue, or they will do so right after they fix the accomplish issue. I don't know that too many people are angry anymore, as those that were angry have probably already taken steps to correct the situation, as namedud alluded to above. Keep in mind that the airline example has happened many times in the past, but I haven't heard any recent examples. This has cost airlines tens of thousands of dollars in some of the extreme examples. Unfortunately, I've never come across any of these pricing errors as I would have pulled the trigger, unlike the gold which I still feel was way overpriced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red BD
It sounds like this is outside your area of expertise, but you mentioned the TOS as Gree's fallback, so please review the section below and provide your thoughts. I went to the same imaginary law school as some others on the forum, so my expertise should not be relied upon, but I think the two highlighted sentences are the focus, with the second one being the key. I would say the first sentence does not apply in this situation as Gree made a modification that only affected a few users and a specific package, which appears to be covered more by the second sentence, in that all sales are final. However, it would be interesting to hear a breakdown of how you view this from a legal standpoint. I could take one of our corporate attorneys out to lunch and I'm sure they could break it down for me, but I really don't want to spend that much time with them as it will bring up a whole host of other topics they want me to address and I don't want to spend any real money to investigate this, so your opinion is appreciated.
7. Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods
The Service may include Virtual Currency and/or Virtual Goods. You have no right, title or interest in or to any such Virtual Goods or Virtual Currency appearing or originating in the Service except for the following: You will have a limited, personal, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license to use, solely within the Service, Virtual Goods and Virtual Currency that you have earned, purchased or otherwise obtained in a manner authorized by GREE. GREE may manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate Virtual Currency and/or Virtual Goods at any time, with or without notice. GREE shall have no liability to you or any third party in the event that GREE exercises any such rights.
The transfer of Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods is prohibited except where expressly authorized in the Service. Other than as expressly authorized in the Service, you shall not sell, redeem or otherwise transfer Virtual Currency or Virtual Goods to any person or entity, including but not limited to GREE, another User or any third party.
You understand and agree that all sales of Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods are final and non-refundable, unless GREE (or the applicable third party platform provider) decides in its sole discretion to provide a refund. You agree that in the event that these Terms of Service, your Account, the Service as a whole or the applicable portion of the Service is terminated or discontinued for any reason, you will forfeit all Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods. GREE will have no liability to you in connection with that forfeiture.
The "problem" I have with all such "agreements", and not just in this field, but insurance, leases, etc, is that no one besides the idiot who wrote them ever reads them when entering into the "agreement." Hence that "I have read..." Thing at the end of the TOS. Doesn't really make for much of a meeting of the minds. Of course, most people, including me, would be so bored by the second paragraph they couldn't focus enough to understand the thing anyway.
But hey, what are ya gonna do? It's one reason lawyers are paid such a ridiculous hourly rate. It's also one of the reasons many lawyers stop practicing and turn to pottery. It's also one of the reasons why, in such contracts of adhesion, courts are supposed to interpret anything vague or ambiguous against the party which came up with it.
It's also why while I started to read the quoted thing, I quickly realized I really don't care and decided to take a nap.
Sorry Crime Cow (-;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crime cow
Seems like an open and shut case based on your bolded quotes.
You understand and agree that all sales of Virtual Currency and Virtual Goods are final and non-refundable, unless GREE (or the applicable third party platform provider) decides in its sole discretion to provide a refund.
So in other words, you can't get your money back. That transaction of buying the bundle is final.
You pay the money, they gave you the gold.
GREE may manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate Virtual Currency and/or Virtual Goods at any time, with or without notice.
Now that the transaction is finished, that is, they have the money, and you have the 2 million gold, GREE can eliminate the virtual currency and/or virtual goods.
And so now GREE removes the 2 million gold.
Seems open and shut. Am I missing something?
Exactly. `Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI
Red is obviously very skilled at what he does...
Buti agree with both of you that this is open and shut. For anyone that's ever dealt with contract disputes Gree doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
As I said, in cases of ambiguity (eg fas between the two highlighted phrases written by Gree), a court is supposed to interpret that against Gree. That is, if all sales are final, they are also final for Gree. Now Gree claims the right (vaguely) to just veto everything, but here they are picking and choosing.
But it's not open and shut in light of what I consider to be the big pile of circumstantial evidence of conduct worthy of a laches (eg unclean hands) defense. You aren't supposed to take advantage of someone you reasonably know is making a mistake or you can be said to have unclean hands and get booted out on equitable principles.
But if anyone wants to try and sue them, I can refer you to a great lawyer (not me, I quit 10 years ago), but I doubt there's that much interest or $$$$$ in it, so IMHO it's really snooze worthy.