3 ms·

Disregard

• yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Yes it does, on page 3; > A developer who wanted to pursue that kind of claim in court could argue using the concept of promissory estoppel, or the "notion that you can't just change the deal if somebody else relied upon it," as Hoeg put it. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed-to-just-change-its-fee-structure-like-that/3/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed...
• ajkjk 3y ago
  ... It does mention it.
• otterley 3y ago
  Isn't promissory estoppel typically used as a fallback theory when a legal contract does not exist?
  • singleshot_ 3y ago
    My reading is that the article skips a step in its analysis. Note that I did not watch the linked video with the video game lawyer and whatever he says is probably more contextually useful than what I say: I’d be more apt to call this an illusory contract where one party reserves the ability to choose how it performs. This destroys the mutuality of agreement in which the contract rests. In some circumstances this might get you to a win simply by escaping the contract. But not if you want damages; in this situation an equitable remedy that does not presume the existence of the contract would be exactly what you would want. On the other hand all of these clickwrap licenses seem to reserve the right to change at any time. I think the only reason that they are not adjudicated as illusory is the existence of mandatory arbitration clauses but I’m not sure. I’d be interested in being set straight if someone reading this is more knowledgeable.
• dang 3y ago
  Once your comment has a reply, please don't edit it in a way that removes the context for readers! Instead, it's fine to add something to the end preceded by "Edit:" or similar.