5 ms·

So Smyte's customers had a valid contract (article mentions a 3 year contract with one customer who was cut off). I find it hard to believe being acquired magi

• ttul 8y ago
  It depends. Was Smyte acquired, or was it merely an acquisition of their assets?
  • asfasgasg 8y ago
    Even if the assets were acquired, I wonder why you can't sue the remaining shell and get a cut of the money that was exchanged for the assets. I guess the real issue is that smyte's contract probably said something like (from GCP's terms of service): > 13.1 Limitation on Indirect Liability. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER PARTY, NOR GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS, WILL BE LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR LOST REVENUES OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE PARTY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT SUCH DAMAGES WERE POSSIBLE AND EVEN IF DIRECT DAMAGES DO NOT SATISFY A REMEDY. > 13.2 Limitation on Amount of Liability. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER PARTY, NOR GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS, MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO GOOGLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • ttul 8y ago
    Perhaps their TOS said that the contract could be canceled automatically if there was a change in control. That's not uncommon.