3 ms·

IANAL but I do run a business that's subject to Australian consumer law. The limitations are not based on the date of the contract of sale, but the date on whi

IANAL but I do run a business that's subject to Australian consumer law. The limitations are not based on the date of the contract of sale, but the date on which the consumer became aware (or reasonably could have been aware) the product was defective, and/or an action was taken by some party to render the product defective. The consumer legislation does specify a six-year time limit from then on, but that clock only just started ticking. However, a refund is not obligatory. Repair i.e. a patch is an acceptable remedy under ACL.

wyongriver 7y ago
You may be right but my reading of this would breach the ACL for “Undisturbed Possession of Goods”. That is - unless you told the customer the game had a limited life you can’t stop them using it. Doing so triggers a “remedy” - which - for a “major fault” is a refund. https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553... (Page 17) This can’t be hidden in a EULA. It has to be prominent or the term will be ruled invalid under the “Unfair Contract Term” provisions of the ACL. For those not familiar, ACL trumps all consumer contracts with standard terms. There are penalties for misrepresenting ACL (eg “No refunds” signs are banned, so are limits to consequential damages. Warranties are for a “reasonable” time, etc. )
- inopinatus 7y ago
  Whatever you or I might think of DRM, it's not a "major failure" to offer products with it. Other provisions apply, but not that one.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    It is a major failure if the DRM causes the game to be unplayable after a few years.
    - inopinatus 7y ago
      No. The legislation's definition of "major failure" includes several clear statements that if a remedy can be/is made by the supplier, the failure is not a major failure.

wyongriver 7y ago

You may be right but my reading of this would breach the ACL for “Undisturbed Possession of Goods”. That is - unless you told the customer the game had a limited life you can’t stop them using it. Doing so triggers a “remedy” - which - for a “major fault” is a refund. https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553... (Page 17) This can’t be hidden in a EULA. It has to be prominent or the term will be ruled invalid under the “Unfair Contract Term” provisions of the ACL. For those not familiar, ACL trumps all consumer contracts with standard terms. There are penalties for misrepresenting ACL (eg “No refunds” signs are banned, so are limits to consequential damages. Warranties are for a “reasonable” time, etc. )

inopinatus 7y ago
Whatever you or I might think of DRM, it's not a "major failure" to offer products with it. Other provisions apply, but not that one.
- sjwright 7y ago
  It is a major failure if the DRM causes the game to be unplayable after a few years.
  - inopinatus 7y ago
    No. The legislation's definition of "major failure" includes several clear statements that if a remedy can be/is made by the supplier, the failure is not a major failure.