Has SI violated the Sales of Goods Act 1979?

As a law student at UoL, this is the first time in all my years of playing CM/FM have I believe SI violated the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 79) and breached their contract at release. The seller (SI) sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality, except in relation to defects drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract was concluded. The purchaser is NOT REQUIRED to prove that the seller was at fault in selling goods which were not of satisfactory quality; the seller may have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the goods were of satisfactory quality but he will still be in breach of contract if they are not of such quality.

This is a statutory violation of the law, and every breach of a valid and enforceable contract gives to the innocent party a right to recover damages in respect of the loss suffered as a result of the breach, unless the liability for breach has been effectively excluded by an appropriately drafted exclusion clause, which is within the bounds of another statutory act, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 77).

Here then, we need to establish whether the breach by SI has been a condition or a warranty. In sections 12-15 of SGA 79, there are certain terms already implied into contracts for the sale of goods. These terms implied are "satisfactory quality", "fitness for purpose "and "compliance with description and sample" are declared to be conditions. SI is clearly in breach of "fitness for purpose" for the Mac version of this game released. Others can argue that their Windows version and the authentication process violates such conditions as stated in the above.

Since this is a statutory violation and not a common law violation, no previous case law is required to support this claim. I encourage other law students to partake in this discussion, and also have a chat with their law professors this coming Monday.

Thanks. I hope SI treats this seriously as we do all have rights under the English Legal System to prevent poor goods from being released into the market prematurely. This does not exclude you SI. I also believe this is the most constructive criticism and approach instead of moaning and complaining.

They did, it is possible to sue them if you rlly want

People are playing the game. People are enjoying the game. The game works.

Go back to bed and stop thinking.

After reading my first post, people would wonder what sort of remedies would their be? For a violation of condition, leading to a breach of contract, the innocent party can give rise to an action for damages besides rescinding the contract (refunding your game). However, since this is simply just a game, I doubt the House of Lords see any reason to protect our 'reliance interest' or 'restitution interest'. You may also need to know that the general rule in law is, no damages can be recovered for mental distress as a result of the breach. However, this rule is subject to exceptions where the claimant suffers mental distress as a result of inconvenience which he has to endure as a result of the breach. So its really a grey area.

I believe the most reasonable thing for SI to do is to offer an option for a refund for all the users who have bought this game before a usable patch was released, and a trouble-free authentication system was released.

SI's losses can be claimed when they take a legal action against the authentication system, Soft-anchor, if they want, due to its failures, but SI is still solely responsible for the end-user.

anagain: The Mac version does not work. Once you click the right button, the whole game crashes, and there is not a release date by SI on the patch since there are "3d problems" with the patch. For you playing on the Windows version, it maybe great, but not for everyone. SI surely has dropped the ball, and the issue isn't even on authentication!

Its to early to be thinking like that.

Besides SI have vast legal divisions. I don't think that this would stand up in court.

Try again next year ae ;D

Lirim, it is irrelevant whether SI has vast legal divisions or not. Many of my law professors would take on cases pro-bono (for free) if they believed it was worth fighting for, even against huge corporations. The problem is that they knew these problems before hand, "anticipatory breach", and yet did not tell us about it. If they added a notice for every game sold for Mac that said "Right clicking would render your game useless and crash", I could have made a decision not to buy and enter in a contract with SI.

What SI has done is clearly illegal in terms of civil law. Our Civil Justice system in England provides us with legal aid for these types of disputes.

1) The mac version works, perhaps not on your machine but it does work.

2) The windows version works, perhaps not on you machine but it does work.

I don't want to discourage you from suing but you'll need a better argument than you have.

Once you click the right button, the whole game crashe

then don't click the right button

sorry, reminded me of a Henny Youngman joke.

Shut up. If FM is so important to you that you want to sue them, then you need to reconsider your priorities.

And please, please, please don't give me the "it's just an intellectual conversation" line. If it was an intellectual conversation, don't bring it on here with hundreds of thousands of other ranters who are just going to swear at SI at every opportunity.

If we did not enforce our statutory rights, what type of law system would we be in? The statutes are clearly there to prevent corporations like SI and others to take advantage of the layman whom have no bargaining rights.

I bought the game for the MAC, with a clear indication that it would work right from the start of opening the box. A few "give and takes" of mistakes yes, that is reasonable, but not when the game is almost unplayable after right clicking.

I appreciate the SI forums as I always have, but

1. placing MAC users in the dark

2. having disregard with statutory law

is not acceptable and has never been.

just have SI give you your money back and put you on the "never sell to this person again" list.

McBride:

How can you build your tactics without using the right button?

The injury bug is horrid.

The game does not run properly in Tiger but it is not stated on the box.

How is this ok?

I'm sorry but I don't have the mac version so excuse the ignorence.

Why do you need the right button for the tactics? (The left brings up the individual player tactics, in windows at least).

The injury 'bug' has no place here.

I don't know what Tiger mode is (sorry).

gillianchung, Macs don't have a right-mouse button...

LAHoward: Do they really care about the consumer when they can't even put an ETA on the Mac version patch? It should be the "never buy from this company again" list.

Why are people here threadcrapping the issue.

Kewell08: The law progressed with simple issues not may not be important TO YOU, but you are just being ignorant. Donoghue v. Stevenson case may seem very "unimportant" to maybe people, but it is a landmark tort case that still stands today. The exact same with "Carlill v. Carbolic". If you don't have anything constructive to say, just go back to your game.

I will sue them, my lawyers told me we got good chances.

MacG: Making arrows

Kewell08: Don't be ignorant. Mac has a "right-mouse" button, Macs can use regular mouse which utilizes the left and right, and does have a right-mouse function for almost all its programs for A LONG TIME already. If the mac doesn't have the right-mouse button, you may press two fingers on the trackpad to trigger the right-mouse function, or press "CTRL" click.

Get a real profession!

Bah. Trying to do a smiley->

And I haven't even said I had any intention to sue. Simply put, this maybe a good case study on psychology and law, on the cult of fan boys willing to look a blind eye to SI breaking the law, and SI starting to become more arrogant in its years, that it can be an interesting issue.

If it was an intellectual conversation, don't bring it on here with hundreds of thousands of other ranters who are just going to swear at SI at every opportunity.

The intellectualconversation.com boards are down so the next best place for a conversation about SI is on the SI boards.

Is that okay with you or shall we refer every response to you before we post it. Alternatively we could post on a message board as it is intended.

The arrows go forward or back.

Make forward runs often = up arrow. Can be set in the personal tactics.

Make forward runs rarely = down arrow. Can be set in the personal tactics.

SI always makes it good. the games been out what 10 hours. i dont know your method of purchasing but steam seems to be the culprit. im sure SI will do right they always have in the past.

sorry for even being here not really adding to the discussion. im about as much a lawyer as obama is a leader.

SI starting to become more arrogant in its years, that it can be an interesting issue.

This I agree with.

SI breaking the law

This I don't.

Its probably a different culture we live in now though.

The law is there in hopes, not for people to sue, but for corporate responsibility to be upheld.

There is no effective remedy for Mac users now. They said the patch would be done tonight, but now have retracted that claim, and any claim of a date.

I don't know about the Windows users, if you guys are doing fine then great, you should be happy. But SI didn't bother to look after the Mac users eventhough on the box, it claims to equally support both platforms. Not even an emergency patch was put out for the Mac.

Nothing, and it is clearly frustrating. I hope more Mac users come on and comment about it.

MacG: It is a statutory breach. The law is quite black and white on its issue. You can take a look of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 online and SI breaks the law if it violates any of the implied conditions set forth by our Parliament. I'm not saying SI committed any criminal wrongdoings, it is a civil law breach.

McBride:

How can you build your tactics without using the right button?

well, i was mostly joking but also, there are no arrows this year and therefore, no reason to use the right click. still it should be disabled as we are all used to using it.

You may not agree with the law, but this isn't a common law standing. Statutes such as the SGA set out the law. It may lead to different statutory interpretation, but that's a topic left for Common Law Reasoning 101.

I've studied business law and as much as I'd like to agree with you I can't see any breach of the sale of goods act.

MacG: And what might your argument be? There is a whole section in 12-15 in SGA, "fitness for purpose" for the mac version, it is clearly not fit yet. It is too easy to crash the game. Imagine if you were playing an Xbox 360, and one of your buttons, even though you didn't use it for anything, would crash the whole game. Would that be a "fitness for purpose" game? Hell no.

so I don't understand why people would be arguing, "don't need the right click button". Since it is clearly a function that is SUPPOSED TO WORK, and WORKS ON THE PC. that breaches "satisfactory quality" and also hurts "fitness for purpose" since it isn't fit for playing, just like my Xbox 360 analogy.

I'm not talking about a small problem like the Belgium league is missing one team, or a player isn't having their name spelled correctly. This is a function of the game that isn't working, and there is no ETA on getting it fixed for the Mac users.

Oh and for people wondering, I'm an avid fan of SI, I played and completed last year's Dafuge challenge with Hallosween. I'm a very typical fan just like you. So don't judge me thinking I'm a hater for this game. I'm not.

I believe the Sale of Goods Act covers sales of physical items. With FM you lease a license to use the software, you don't buy anything of a physical nature.

Although there may be some law contravened (although not sure which) it is not the Sales of Goods Act.

DJdeMarco: Now that is a great constructive point. So for people who purchase via Steam, they would be covered under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, while the people who purchased the hard copy is actually the purchase of the physical item correct?

The game works as it it and therefore meets the "fitness for purpose" rule. There's nothing you can't access because you can't right click. Just because it's supposed to work doesn't mean a thing, they're not advertising 'now with right click ability' There's been many games over the years that you could crash easily by hitting the wrong button none of which have breach the sales of goods act.

The Spore DRM case (if it ever gets to court) will be much more interesting to SI as that will have a direct effect on them.

Unfortunately I have to be up in 3 hours but I hope this thread will continue.

i'm knowledge of law is quite basic, but where in the sale of goods act does it give you rights against the manufactuer? The sale of goods act gives you rights against the retailer of the product! Some people are using their crazy arguements on here to compensate for something 'else'

MacG: I hope this thread will continue too. I am only a student and believe there is much to be gained and to learn the people's views in this issue. Debates in law have existed since the beginning of law lords which govern our land today. There will always be disputes and 3:2 judgments where 3 judges oppose the view of the other 2. I will always accept dissenting opinions from my fellow forum mates.

So you would argue that since it is a game, it is fit for this purpose. I suppose you can argue that, the point which would be placed in question would be whether the right click would constitute a clear flaw that would harm that fitness to play the game.

Ninjamark: That's a solid point, but what about people who purchased from Steam?

Ninjamark: So you are actually saying that if we refund these games to the retailer, that the retailer has the right to bring legal action against SI, whom directly sold the products to them. That would also be logical.

Since it is the retailers whom believed that the game would have worked. Now, if many people who are unhappy with their MAC versions all refunded their copies, the retailers who were the most greatly affected, could they be covered?

No it would make no difference if you bought it on steam or or via hard copy. Its still a licensed copy which isn't like popping out to buy a new cooker and becomes yours. We are simply buying a right to install the game on our computer (which admittedly may be in conflict somewhere but at 7 am on a saturday I'm not going to endeavor to look up)

To start quoting implied and statutory terms is a bit drastic considering

a) if there was any breach the buck would not stop completely with SI so you would spend god knows how long looking at where the fault was (SEGA, SoftAnchor etc)

b) You can just return the game to point of purchase because I don't think any judge will award more than the £25 paid in damages for anyone who sat trying to validate a key for a day through there own choice.

I have no idea if that makes sense. Its too early.

There would be no differentiation between CD or digital download as this is just a method of supply and not the actual service you are leasing.

If the CD was not readable, that may constitute a lack of delivery of the purchased service but as no-one is complaining that the CD's aren't readable, that doesn't apply.

"As a law student" - says it all really...

Ninjamark: For an end-user to bring an action to the manufacturer would be a-la "Donoghue v. Stevenson" in tort. There would be a requirement of a duty of care by SI, which I do not believe would be established, since there is no proximity. Could there be a tort issue here? It becomes a very heated issue since Miles actually comes on the forum which affects his proximity with his users. Any statement he makes could hold him legally liable. Anyone who is an expert in tort have any insight in this?

As a law student at UoL, this is the first time in all my years of playing CM/FM have I believe SI violated the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 79) and breached their contract at release. The seller (SI) sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality, except in relation to defects drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract was concluded. The purchaser is NOT REQUIRED to prove that the seller was at fault in selling goods which were not of satisfactory quality; the seller may have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the goods were of satisfactory quality but he will still be in breach of contract if they are not of such quality.

This is a statutory violation of the law, and every breach of a valid and enforceable contract gives to the innocent party a right to recover damages in respect of the loss suffered as a result of the breach, unless the liability for breach has been effectively excluded by an appropriately drafted exclusion clause, which is within the bounds of another statutory act, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 77).

Here then, we need to establish whether the breach by SI has been a condition or a warranty. In sections 12-15 of SGA 79, there are certain terms already implied into contracts for the sale of goods. These terms implied are "satisfactory quality", "fitness for purpose "and "compliance with description and sample" are declared to be conditions. SI is clearly in breach of "fitness for purpose" for the Mac version of this game released. Others can argue that their Windows version and the authentication process violates such conditions as stated in the above.

Since this is a statutory violation and not a common law violation, no previous case law is required to support this claim. I encourage other law students to partake in this discussion, and also have a chat with their law professors this coming Monday.

Thanks. I hope SI treats this seriously as we do all have rights under the English Legal System to prevent poor goods from being released into the market prematurely. This does not exclude you SI. I also believe this is the most constructive criticism and approach instead of moaning and complaining.

I suspect you are Hong Kong people. If yes, go back HK to study law.

Oh and for people wondering, I'm an avid fan of SI, I played and completed last year's Dafuge challenge with Hallosween. I'm a very typical fan just like you. So don't judge me thinking I'm a hater for this game. I'm not.

Gillianchung, I couldn't agree with you more, the issue is that there are many confused people around, they love SI games, probably they are shareholders or more simply they have this not so productive fanboy attitude towards SI.

These people would have been happy even if SI had sold them an empty box: no patch for Mac? Who cares... just enjoy the game!!!

No right click working...who cares, just enjoy your bugged game, and so on and on!

This a road to serfdom mate, if we aren't able to open our eyes and see this always more arrogant attitude, we didn't stimulate them to perform better next time, never heard about customer satisfaction ?

Harlow Brown: It makes sense. So SI would be selling their right to license the game which would waive any sort of responsibility on the quality and usability of the game itself right?

Davet010: yes I do not hide that I am just a student. I am posting to learn more anyways. What have you got to say besides one-liner garbage?

Higgins: Thanks for your support. I am really a fan of SI, but there needs to be voices of dissent sometimes, even if my legal points aren't valid.

That's how Lehman Brothers went belly up, CEO Dick Fulds refused and dismissed any dissenting associates until it was too late. It just seems that this release was so wrong in so many aspects, and I'm not even going into the authentication system.

oh dear.

what a sad life you must lead gillian.

have your dick measuring contest (is there a female equivalent?) with your lecturer and other "law student" buddies. to claim any breach of such an act is quite ridiculous and only highlights your low level of understanding of the law.

a few more years with your nose in the books and youll look back at this thread in embarrassment.