By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
peanut1972 said:
noname2200 said:
peanut1972 said:
Wow. Nintendo gets paid, and does not pass it along. I see a law suit coming out of this.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here (I suspect not. However...), but since it's almost certainly spelled out in the contract any lawsuit would get dismissed by summary judgment minutes after going before the judge.

Your not in California are you?  Progressive Judges come up with some strange rulings as they breath new life into the meaning of words.

 

In point of fact, I am. And I even study California law for a living. And while I'll be the first to tell you that our courts have slipped in quality from their golden age, the basic rules of contract remain in place. Contract terms can only be nullified if they violate public policy, are unconscionable, or meet one of a few other narrow circumstances.

While you can try to take a stab at the latter, you'd lose, simply because courts assume that commercial parties enter into contracts with their eyes open, and there's nothing I can see here that rebuts that presumption. In fact, I'm highly skeptical that a court would find these terms unconscionable even if one of the parties was a common consumer, as the threshold for "unconscionable" remains pretty high. Additionally, there are other venues that developers can take, which is taken into account.

But this whole discussion is irrelevant, as I'm fairly certain that Nintendo's made sure that Washington law applies.