4 ms·
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 limite
by 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 agoWhatever 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 agoIt is a major failure if the DRM causes the game to be unplayable after a few years.
- inopinatus 7y agoNo. 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.