Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Can/Should Bungie (temp)ban people who log into H3 early?
  • Subject: Can/Should Bungie (temp)ban people who log into H3 early?
Subject: Can/Should Bungie (temp)ban people who log into H3 early?

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
And you fail to understand that until the product can be legally transfered to another party through a valid contract, the property rights are still the property of the original rights holder. I'm talking to two lawyers as I'm typing this and they are both saying that is correct.


could you ask them which laws preserve a firm's right to only have their product sold after a specific time? selling game's early may violate agreements between game makers and game sellers, but breaking the terms of an agreement between two parties is not tantamount to breaking any laws.

  • 08.31.2007 9:39 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

However Ses, you cannot validly take possession of the game because the retailers do not have the ability to transfer ownership to you. If you buy the game outside of a legally valid contract, then ownership of the game is still maintained by the original rights holder, in this case Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 9:40 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: sesquipadelian
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
And you fail to understand that until the product can be legally transfered to another party through a valid contract, the property rights are still the property of the original rights holder. I'm talking to two lawyers as I'm typing this and they are both saying that is correct.


could you ask them which laws preserve a firm's right to only have their product sold after a specific time? selling game's early may violate agreements between game makers and game sellers, but breaking the terms of an agreement between two parties is not tantamount to breaking any laws.


Original IP rights/laws.

~B.B.

[Edited on 08.31.2007 9:44 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 9:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
You cannot legally take possession of something that is not legally able to be transfered to you.
~B.B.

Then explain to me why all the Bioshock owners from Toys R Us weren't in trouble?


Because 2k didn't feel like making an issue of it. Since they maintained original contract rights on it, they could have hammered anyone that they found to have the game early. But they didn't, and maybe they should have.

~B.B.
So you're saying that they should have took legal charges on thousands of people for purchasing a game that they actually thought was out on release date? Makes perfect sense.

  • 08.31.2007 9:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This topic has changed from "What to do with people who get hao 3 early" to "Laws and Technicalities over early purchases". Could we please stick to the original topic and not turn another thread into a flame-fest?

But back to the original point: If anything bungie could just have all of the hao 3 game servers offline until the day it comes out (either unplugged or an on/off switch).

[Edited on 08.31.2007 9:50 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 9:48 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: odmichael
So you're saying that they should have took legal charges on thousands of people for purchasing a game that they actually thought was out on release date? Makes perfect sense.


No, what I'm saying is that the people who bought Bioshock early did not technically "own" the game because they could not legally buy the game from those retailers. Now for 2k it wouldn't have made a difference because their only action would be to physically go and take back the games from the people who bought them; which they are not going to do.

This is exactly the same legal precedent with why you cannot keep property you bought that's stolen. I cannot imagine why people are not seeming to understand this concept.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 9:52 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: El Roboto
This topic has changed from "What to do with people who get hao 3 early" to "Laws and Technicalities over early purchases". Could we please stick to the original topic and not turn another thread into a flame-fest?

But back to the original point: If anything bungie could just have all of the hao 3 game servers offline until the day it comes out (either unplugged or an on/off switch).


Unfortunately, and I even admit, that a key part of my argument about that Bungie could/should do something to prevent people from logging into Halo 3 early is dependent upon whether or not it is legal to buy the game early. So unless that issue is addressed, subsequent arguments cannot be made because if that initial premise is invalid, it makes all arguments subsequent to it invalid.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 9:54 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Primum Agmen
A tosser is the same as a wanker. To toss oneself off is to fondle the trouser weasel.


Achronos

Joe Staten

Posted by: BerserkerBarage

NO co-op for you (grabs bag Soup Nasi style).

~B.B.


I think it it spelled -blam!-* and that was a very good episode!

  • 08.31.2007 9:56 AM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
However Ses, you cannot validly take possession of the game because the retailers do not have the ability to transfer ownership to you. If you buy the game outside of a legally valid contract, then ownership of the game is still maintained by the original rights holder, in this case Bungie/MSGS.


all that we can do is speculate and guess. we know that the game sellers have bought the copies of the games, and we know that they have made an agreement to sell the copies according to certain restrictions (like price, release date, and so forth). but, the game sellers will own the copies of the games by the time they distribute them. as far as i can tell, game sellers selling the game early, or at a radically discounted rate, would not involve them breaking the law, and it would not involve game players breaking any laws, but the contract between 2 business parties would be violated.

we can think of countless other examples along these lines. imagine a property owner renting space to a club owner and having a contract that states that the club operator would only allow access to club members. we can then imagine the club owner allowing a few nonmembers to use the facilities for a few hours. according to your argument, these people would be breaking the law even though they were granted access to the facilities. the owner of the property could complain because the terms of the rental agreement were broken, but there does not seem to be anything illegal about this.

as another example, imagine a person who owns many bikes who leases the bikes to a bike rental retailer. the owner may require that renters provide an in-state drivers permit to secure a rental. if the bike renter were to break this agreement and rent a bike to a person with out-of-state identification, your argument would entail that the person renting the bike with the wrong kind of i.d. would be acting illegally.

again, i am no law professional, but it seems that you are conflating a a firm violating an agreement with another firm with individuals breaking the law.

  • 08.31.2007 9:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My friend, you would not tell with ſuch high zeſt
To children ardent for ſome deſperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum eſt
Pro patria mori.

Nonono... The retailers buy the games in advance and sign contracts or what have you to ensure they only sell on a particular date. The product is still theirs to sell, and the consumer still owns the product when purchased; what happens is that the retailer has [possibly] violated a contract, not a law. There's a difference.

  • 08.31.2007 9:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael
So you're saying that they should have took legal charges on thousands of people for purchasing a game that they actually thought was out on release date? Makes perfect sense.


No, what I'm saying is that the people who bought Bioshock early did not technically "own" the game because they could not legally buy the game from those retailers. Now for 2k it wouldn't have made a difference because their only action would be to physically go and take back the games from the people who bought them; which they are not going to do.

This is exactly the same legal precedent with why you cannot keep property you bought that's stolen. I cannot imagine why people are not seeming to understand this concept.

~B.B.

They do own the game. This is what you cannot seem to understand. Once sold to a buyer, they own the item. Illegal or not, I would call the item bought "Improperly". They purchased the item in improperly by purchasing the game disc early. However, it is now in their possesion. Whether you want to or not, you can't say they don't own the game because they do. It's not the buyer's fault. It's the companies. It wasn't stolen. It was just error. Simple as that.

  • 08.31.2007 9:58 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Since we are on the subject of examples, let me give you one.

I own a bike. I like my bike. One day Ses comes and steals my bike. Now Ses wants to sell my bike to Frag. They agree upon a price and Frag gives Ses $25 bucks for my bike. Who owns the bike?

Obviously I do still because Ses cannot transfer ownership of the bike to Frag because he does not own the bike in order to make a valid contract. Here's how it applies to Halo 3.

Bungie/MSGS own the rights and product of Halo 3. They sell the game to retailers under the contract that the retailers are able to take possession of the product as long as they abide by certain guidelines, the beginning of which starts with when they sell the game. If the retailers violate that contract they no longer have any ownership rights to the Halo 3 product which means that any selling of the game they do is thereby invalid because they no longer have ownership in order to validly transfer rights and ownership. I buy the game through an invalid contract, which does not transfer ownership to me. Since there is no valid contract between myself and the retailer, the game is still the property of Bungie/MSGS.

Understand?

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 10:06 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: odmichael

They do own the game. This is what you cannot seem to understand. Once sold to a buyer, they own the item. Illegal or not, I would call the item bought "Improperly". They purchased the item in improperly by purchasing the game disc early. However, it is now in their possesion. Whether you want to or not, you can't say they don't own the game because they do. It's not the buyer's fault. It's the companies. It wasn't stolen. It was just error. Simple as that.


No...I'm sorry, they do not own the game. They have the game in their possession, but they do not own it. The underlined statement is completely false. If the retailer cannot legally transfer ownership of the game to you, no matter what the game is still owned by Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 10:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A Guide to Networking, Matchmaking, and Host in Halo (HBO mirror)

Bungie Friends and Family invitee, and sender of "random emails" about networking.

Bungie/MSGS own the rights and product of Halo 3. They sell the game to retailers under the contract that the retailers are able to take possession of the product as long as they abide by certain guidelines, the beginning of which starts with when they sell the game. If the retailers violate that contract they no longer have any ownership rights to the Halo 3 product which means that any selling of the game they do is thereby invalid because they no longer have ownership in order to validly transfer rights and ownership. I buy the game through an invalid contract, which does not transfer ownership to me. Since there is no valid contract between myself and the retailer, the game is still the property of Bungie/MSGS.

Wrong. They sell the game to retailers, under a contract that states the stock cannot be opened, or resold before the release date. This does not infringe on their rights to transfer ownership; they are still able to do so, but will violate the contract. The reselling per se is not illegal, but the contract violation is. This is why Microsoft can take action against the retailer.

The reselling contract is valid, as the retailer owned the product they sold. It then becomes the legal property of the customer, and the customer is not bound by the terms of the contract between Microsoft and the retailer.

The ownership is perfectly valid, and the item is certainly not the property of Microsoft; the customer-retailer contract is most certainly valid.

[Edited on 08.31.2007 10:12 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 10:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Since we are on the subject of examples, let me give you one.

I own a bike. I like my bike. One day Ses comes and steals my bike. Now Ses wants to sell my bike to Frag. They agree upon a price and Frag gives Ses $25 bucks for my bike. Who owns the bike?

Obviously I do still because Ses cannot transfer ownership of the bike to Frag because he does not own the bike in order to make a valid contract. Here's how it applies to Halo 3.

Bungie/MSGS own the rights and product of Halo 3. They sell the game to retailers under the contract that the retailers are able to take possession of the product as long as they abide by certain guidelines, the beginning of which starts with when they sell the game. If the retailers violate that contract they no longer have any ownership rights to the Halo 3 product which means that any selling of the game they do is thereby invalid because they no longer have ownership in order to validly transfer rights and ownership. I buy the game through an invalid contract, which does not transfer ownership to me. Since there is no valid contract between myself and the retailer, the game is still the property of Bungie/MSGS.

Understand?

~B.B.

Bad example.


Retailers have to purchase the games from microsoft. They don't just jack the games and run.

  • 08.31.2007 10:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael

They do own the game. This is what you cannot seem to understand. Once sold to a buyer, they own the item. Illegal or not, I would call the item bought "Improperly". They purchased the item in improperly by purchasing the game disc early. However, it is now in their possesion. Whether you want to or not, you can't say they don't own the game because they do. It's not the buyer's fault. It's the companies. It wasn't stolen. It was just error. Simple as that.


No...I'm sorry, they do not own the game. They have the game in their possession, but they do not own it. The underlined statement is completely false. If the retailer cannot legally transfer ownership of the game to you, no matter what the game is still owned by Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.
The game IS legally transferred. Just early. By launch date those sales are legit. The transaction just took place earlier than expected.

[Edited on 08.31.2007 10:15 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 10:14 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: One One Seven
[Wrong. They sell the game to retailers, under a contract that states the stock cannot be opened, or resold before the release date. This does not infringe on their rights to transfer ownership; they are still able to do so, but will violate the contract. The reselling per se is not illegal, but the contract violation is. This is why Microsoft can take action against the retailer.

The reselling contract is valid, as the retailer owned the product they sold. It then becomes the legal property of the customer, and the customer is not bound by the terms of the contract between Microsoft and the retailer.

The ownership is perfectly valid, and the item is certainly not the property of Microsoft; the customer-retailer contract is most certainly valid.


I'm sorry Seven, but what you are still saying is still wrong. As soon as the retailers violate the contract in which they were given ownership of the property, any subsequent contracts are invalid. They cannot legally transfer ownership of what they do not currently own (due to breach of contract). As soon as the retailer attempts to sell the product outside of the original contract, they lose all rights to the property. They cannot become legal property of the customer because that contract is invalid.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 10:15 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Posted by: odmichael
The game IS legally transferred. Just early. By launch date those sales are legit. The transaction just took place earlier than expected.


No...I'm sorry it's not. By attempting to transfer ownership early they violate their ability to transfer ownership. They cannot transfer ownership of the game if they break their initial contract with Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

  • 08.31.2007 10:18 AM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Since we are on the subject of examples, let me give you one.

I own a bike. I like my bike. One day Ses comes and steals my bike. Now Ses wants to sell my bike to Frag. They agree upon a price and Frag gives Ses $25 bucks for my bike. Who owns the bike?

Obviously I do still because Ses cannot transfer ownership of the bike to Frag because he does not own the bike in order to make a valid contract. Here's how it applies to Halo 3.

Bungie/MSGS own the rights and product of Halo 3. They sell the game to retailers under the contract that the retailers are able to take possession of the product as long as they abide by certain guidelines, the beginning of which starts with when they sell the game. If the retailers violate that contract they no longer have any ownership rights to the Halo 3 product which means that any selling of the game they do is thereby invalid because they no longer have ownership in order to validly transfer rights and ownership. I buy the game through an invalid contract, which does not transfer ownership to me. Since there is no valid contract between myself and the retailer, the game is still the property of Bungie/MSGS.

Understand?


i understand your point, but your example involving stolen property is disanalogous. in the case of selling stolen property, the seller NEVER has ownership of the item in question. in the case of game sellers, they do take ownership of the discs at a point before the discs are sold to consumers, and this is the case no matter when they sell them. the game sellers buy and own the games, and they agree to sell their games according to certain constraints, such as price and sales date, but they own the games. they own the game on 9/25, and they own the games on 9/24. since they own the discs, and since buyers properly buy the discs, game players will have proper ownership of the games, even though the game seller has broken their agreement with the game maker. by game sellers violating the terms of their agreement with microsoft, the discs are not still owned by microsoft. IF they were, then your argument would hold. but, since we have no reason to suppose that the sales of game discs to game sellers has such strict property ownership clauses, we have no reason to believe that anyone is selling stolen goods.

the game sellers own the discs, and they sell them to players in ways that happen to break their sales agreement with microsoft. game sellers own the games, and they have agreed to sell the games to players according to certain conditions, but they still own the games, and game buyers who buy the discs rightly own them. again, you are conflating things here.

  • 08.31.2007 10:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael

They do own the game. This is what you cannot seem to understand. Once sold to a buyer, they own the item. Illegal or not, I would call the item bought "Improperly". They purchased the item in improperly by purchasing the game disc early. However, it is now in their possesion. Whether you want to or not, you can't say they don't own the game because they do. It's not the buyer's fault. It's the companies. It wasn't stolen. It was just error. Simple as that.


No...I'm sorry, they do not own the game. They have the game in their possession, but they do not own it. The underlined statement is completely false. If the retailer cannot legally transfer ownership of the game to you, no matter what the game is still owned by Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. A long time back on b.net when there was a huge topic/flamefest about why modders are banned for changing something that they own. I dunno remember which ninja (this post was a LONG time ago) but he did say something along the lines that the customers don't literaly own the game. I don't remember all the details but thats the most importan part that I can remember from it.

  • 08.31.2007 10:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael
The game IS legally transferred. Just early. By launch date those sales are legit. The transaction just took place earlier than expected.


No...I'm sorry it's not. By attempting to transfer ownership early they violate their ability to transfer ownership. They cannot transfer ownership of the game if they break their initial contract with Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

The consumer did not break a contract. The retailer did. But that isn't going to cause legal action whether you think it should or not.

  • 08.31.2007 10:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: El Roboto
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: odmichael

They do own the game. This is what you cannot seem to understand. Once sold to a buyer, they own the item. Illegal or not, I would call the item bought "Improperly". They purchased the item in improperly by purchasing the game disc early. However, it is now in their possesion. Whether you want to or not, you can't say they don't own the game because they do. It's not the buyer's fault. It's the companies. It wasn't stolen. It was just error. Simple as that.


No...I'm sorry, they do not own the game. They have the game in their possession, but they do not own it. The underlined statement is completely false. If the retailer cannot legally transfer ownership of the game to you, no matter what the game is still owned by Bungie/MSGS.

~B.B.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. A long time back on b.net when there was a huge topic/flamefest about why modders are banned for changing something that they own. I dunno remember which ninja (this post was a LONG time ago) but he did say something along the lines that the customers don't literaly own the game. I don't remember all the details but thats the most importan part that I can remember from it.

I see where he is going with this and do remember the topic you are talking about. It was either Ninja on Fire or Shishka. But even if they do not have full ownership of the game, Microsoft would not take legal action on anyone. There really is no point.

  • 08.31.2007 10:24 AM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Posted by: One One Seven
[Wrong. They sell the game to retailers, under a contract that states the stock cannot be opened, or resold before the release date. This does not infringe on their rights to transfer ownership; they are still able to do so, but will violate the contract. The reselling per se is not illegal, but the contract violation is. This is why Microsoft can take action against the retailer.

The reselling contract is valid, as the retailer owned the product they sold. It then becomes the legal property of the customer, and the customer is not bound by the terms of the contract between Microsoft and the retailer.

The ownership is perfectly valid, and the item is certainly not the property of Microsoft; the customer-retailer contract is most certainly valid.


I'm sorry Seven, but what you are still saying is still wrong. As soon as the retailers violate the contract in which they were given ownership of the property, any subsequent contracts are invalid. They cannot legally transfer ownership of what they do not currently own (due to breach of contract). As soon as the retailer attempts to sell the product outside of the original contract, they lose all rights to the property. They cannot become legal property of the customer because that contract is invalid.


no, he is right. the only way that he would be wrong would be IF microsoft had funky conditions involving the transfer of ownership of the discs. you are supposing (with no reason) that this is the kind of contract that microsoft has with game sellers. instead, we have better reason to suppose that microsoft makes one agreement to transfer ownership of the discs (the terms of sale of the discs to the game sellers), and that they have an agreement with game sellers that the game sellers will then sell the discs (now owned by game sellers) in a certain fashion (game sellers are to sell their property at a set price and at a set date).

again, your whole argument hinges upon microsoft and game sellers having an agreement that makes ownership rights of the game discs contingent upon how the game discs are to then be sold. if they do not have such an agreement, then your point is mistaken. since we have no reason to believe that they have this kind of sales agreement with game sellers, you are getting worked up about a non-issue.

  • 08.31.2007 10:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A Guide to Networking, Matchmaking, and Host in Halo (HBO mirror)

Bungie Friends and Family invitee, and sender of "random emails" about networking.

I'm sorry Seven, but what you are still saying is still wrong. As soon as the retailers violate the contract in which they were given ownership of the property, any subsequent contracts are invalid. They cannot legally transfer ownership of what they do not currently own (due to breach of contract). As soon as the retailer attempts to sell the product outside of the original contract, they lose all rights to the property. They cannot become legal property of the customer because that contract is invalid.


Subsequent contracts are only invalid if they are not formed properly. The contract does also not apply to ownership of the property, it applies to selling the property. One contract does not depend on the integrity of another, only the validity.

The retailer does not lose the rights to the property if they break the contract; they paid for them, and legally own them, until they transfer ownership. Microsoft has no claim on the goods the moment it sells them. The only right it has if the contract is broken, is the right to take legal action against the reseller. They have no claim to the goods, and the retailer-customer contract is perfectly valid, as the retailer legitimately owns the goods, and has the right to transfer ownership.

You need to understand that contracts are not a chain. They are their own separate thing, and are only invalidated if there is an illegal contract further up the chain.

Once you transfer ownership legally, you cannot take it back. Microsoft has no right when it sells the retailer goods, and likewise the retailer has no right to the goods once it has sold it to you.

You really really need to understand these basis concepts.


The only way your argument would be correct is if in the contract it stated that breaking the contract immediately transfers all ownership back to Microsoft. No retailer in their right mind would agree to such a contract; if a mistake were made, they lose the money they used to buy the stock, and the stock itself! No-one would agree to such a contract!

[Edited on 08.31.2007 10:31 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 10:26 AM PDT

MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK...
Posted by: Langley
--on another note, I think MLG Chewhatever is an idiot.

Posted by: Achronos
There is a reason I am user ID 1 and my account creation date is before this site came online.

Here's the thing, and it's the principle of superseding contracts. I'll give you another example Ses, one that doesn't include you stealing my bike....jerk!

I own a house. Ses, you are my real estate agent. I sell you my house under the contract that you cannot sell it until I move out which is September 25th. Seven comes along and wants to buy my house. He pays you your asking price, but he still doesn't own my house until our prior contract is resolved, which is on September 25th. You cannot transfer ownership of the house until I transfer ownership of the house to you through the completion of our contract.

Sorry if that example is a little convoluted, but I think it gets the point across. Bungie/MSGS contract with retailers takes precedent to any contract that retailers make with customers. If they fail to withhold their part of their contract with Bungie/MSGS they cannot transfer ownership because they by their contract no longer own the game.

~B.B.

And with that...I'm going to lunch. I'll pick this up later.

[Edited on 08.31.2007 11:24 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2007 10:32 AM PDT