You are assuming Sega screwed up at all. Do you have proof that a Sega employee was authorized by Sega to dispose of the items or sell the items? What legal code can you quote saying, "These dev kits were the rightful property of either Sega or the scrapyard (and not Nintendo's property)?"

You are the one being illogical here by jumping to conclusions based solely on the testimony of the accused reseller. And by ignoring property laws. Let's wait until more information comes out before trying to pin the blame on Sega. As for the reseller, for the third time, he would have known full well that he was buying property that couldn't be legally sold. Again, He was buying property that he knew full well couldn't be legally sold by Sega, or the scrapyard. 

Read the article.
It was legitimately acquired. Sega was incompetent. 

Either way, we will find out when this stupid lawsuit sorts it all out or gets settled. Hopefully it doesn't ruin someones life forever.

Did you read the article? I've seen your back and forth with Pemalite. I really dont get how you could make your posts after reading the article. 

Did you two read the article? Let me help you with that.

And like I said before... It is common knowledge among game resellers that these dev kits are not to be sold to the public. So the reseller knew full well he was conducting an illegal purchase of Nintendo's property. That's the bottom line, unless you can quote some legal loophole in the U.K. that magically makes the dev kits the property of Sega or the scrap yard or a Sega employee. 

If I borrow a game from you and sell it a garage sale and the purchaser knows it is not mine is that a legitimate purchase?

Companies terms of service, EULA does not override your consumer rights.

In Australia, which is often based on UK law, secondhand purchases are generally not bound by a company's original terms of service, as the terms of service contract is between the manufacturer and the original purchaser.

Also. Read the article and start putting consumers before big business/rich. It's silly.

Companies terms of service, EULA does not override your consumer rights.

In Australia, which is often based on UK law, secondhand purchases are generally not bound by a company's original terms of service, as the terms of service contract is between the manufacturer and the original purchaser.

Also. Read the article and start putting consumers before big business/rich. It's silly.

What?
If someone sells something they don't have a right to sell, then that's selling stolen goods and the original owner has a right to recover it. It doesn't matter if the owner is a company or an individual. The line cerebralbore outlines above shows that the kits belonged to Nintendo so unless someone at Nintendo signed off on the deal, then they *can't* be legally purchased. Not unless the UK has some strange law that allows theft. I'm less inclined to blame the guy who purchased them as he may be unaware that the kits were Nintendo's property, but whether he's aware or not, stolen goods deserve to be restored to their rightful owners.

Did you two read the article? Let me help you with that.

And like I said before... It is common knowledge among game resellers that these dev kits are not to be sold to the public. So the reseller knew full well he was conducting an illegal purchase of Nintendo's property. That's the bottom line, unless you can quote some legal loophole in the U.K. that magically makes the dev kits the property of Sega or the scrap yard or a Sega employee. 

If I borrow a game from you and sell it a garage sale and the purchaser knows it is not mine is that a legitimate purchase?

If the events occurred as described in the article. Sega is at fault here. Period. Sega had property disposed of that didn't belong to them. The person disposing of the items didn't steal them. They were literally hired by Sega to remove all the items remaining in the building. The person buying the materials were buying scrapped items. So Sega is the one that should be penalized here. They were at fault. This is them shirking repsonsiblity for their mistake. The proper course of action would have been to reimburse the person that bought the goods and then return them to Nintendo. 

What?
If someone sells something they don't have a right to sell, then that's selling stolen goods and the original owner has a right to recover it. It doesn't matter if the owner is a company or an individual. The line cerebralbore outlines above shows that the kits belonged to Nintendo so unless someone at Nintendo signed off on the deal, then they *can't* be legally purchased. Not unless the UK has some strange law that allows theft. I'm less inclined to blame the guy who purchased them as he may be unaware that the kits were Nintendo's property, but whether he's aware or not, stolen goods deserve to be restored to their rightful owners.

Can you provide a link to U.K. law stating so? Also was it specifically an EULA that Sega was bound to and not a rental contract? 

 I emailed (bolded below) Nintendo's PAL branch with the following email. I also reached out to a U.K. law service for clarification. Maybe we can figure out whether or not U.K. law overrides their agreement. 

Hello,

Can I buy a Nintendo dev kit from a reseller?

When purchasing a Nintendo 3DS or DS Dev Kit does it become my property? Or does it remain the property of Nintendo? If it remains the property of Nintendo could you include a copy of the contract that makes it remain the property of Nintendo?

Also, why do you believe everything Time Extension says, telling me to read the article, when the article outright states that the dev kits always belong to Nintendo? Let's say that it is an EULA that Sega was bound to. That would make Time Extension wrong. But if they are wrong about that why trust anything else they say? Do you realize that this entire discussion hinges on Time Extension gullibly believing everything the reseller tells them? 

Pemalite is claiming that 3DS Dev kits are under an EULA and that EULAs don't apply to secondhand purchases, in the U.K. If he can provide a reliable source for his EULA claim. And if it was indeed an EULA and not a different contract, then I would concede. I would love it if LegalEagle or somebody knowledgeable in the law picked this up. 

But if the contract isn't an EULA but instead more like a rental contract or even an NDA then Pemalite would be wrong.