Has SI violated the Sales of Goods Act 1979?

[Harlow Brown]

Well it would be more an issue through licensing law that through the sale of goods. The fact its any claim through the sale of good would aim just to put you back in the position you would be in before the game was purchased. Hence returning the £25 or whatever was paid.

I have no real idea under licensing law what you could claim but SoG would be costly and ultimately fairly pointless IMO.

[kam99]

I have supported this programmme since the first issue of Championship Manager. This is the first time I have posted a complaint. The situation was a disgrace. Heads should roll, and I hope SI are brave enough to make that public. I also hope they are smart enough to put measures in place to ensure that a mistake of this magnitude does not happen again.

Will I continue to support SI? I don't know.

Last night I emailed Play.com and asked for a Return Number as the game would not activate and was therefore not fit for purpose.

[--b--]

Last night I emailed Play.com and asked for a Return Number as the game would not activate and was therefore not fit for purpose.

the fact that the servers were overloaded and certain tech issues prevented some from activating immediately has ZERO relevance to 'not fit for purpose'

carry on with your sad little delusions though... its your loss.

[Atredes71]

I think there's a case here. There's precedent in the case of dumb v. arse ... hung jury.

[gillianchung]

--b-- The law is man-made. If there are holes in the law such as this one, we go to our respective legislators to whom we vote for to change the law, such as putting digital goods such as video games to the standards of physical goods, where they are expected to work after purchase. You however, show no understanding of the law by just flaming me.

Harlow Brown: Yeah, I thought the only remedy available would be a refund of the game itself. Which should lead to thinking whether there should be more consumer protection on digital goods such as these, done by parliament?

What some people fail to realize is that the law is constantly evolving, and changes with developments in our culture and political system. Should something like SI and other digital makers be held more accountable for a good finished product?

[mickyt11]

Absolute non-sense post. Unfortunately things go wrong with software after the testing phase and released to the public. And you call yourself a law student - very scary.

[gillianchung]

I don't see how many people like --b-- can "accept" current standards and not promote for change. If these standards do not uphold our customer satisfaction, then surely the people we vote for in parliament should. The arguments of SI only selling the license is a good one, so should there be greater standards put forth? Or shall we accept things we purchase digitally / games to not work at the outset and be happy with it?

[gillianchung]

mickyt11: What you're saying is very irresponsible. What is very scary about me being a law student? How do you link such a description with no support, and what is your meaning of scary and in what context? You're the one posting nonsense.

[--b--]

--b-- The law is man-made. If there are holes in the law such as this one, we go to our respective legislators to whom we vote for to change the law, such as putting digital goods such as video games to the standards of physical goods, where they are expected to work after purchase. You however, show no understanding of the law by just flaming me.

if you honestly think digital goods should be considered the same as other tangible goods in the sense that application of the relavent law would deem this instance a breech, then you are completely and utterly delusional.

like i said, hit the books for a few years and come back and cringe at this thread.

better still, go talk to an actual lawyer and post a transcript of the hilarity here.

[Harlow Brown]

What else would you need to claim other than a refund? As I said it makes no sense to try and claim compensation or damages for a persons own stupidity to keep trying when a known problem exists. There's plenty of protection in place with e-commerce regs and distance contract protection but none of it will get you a better (or more reasonable) money than the purchase price.

Not to mention you would **** your life savings away in costs.

[gillianchung]

--b-- and you are what? a legal clerk?

You are using delusional, and not saying why I'm delusional, and in the sense "completely and utterly".

You are saying breach, when you can't even spell breach correctly.

Why can't digital goods be considered? Have you seen ebay where they sell game accounts and digital weaponry of Diablo and Everquest? Are you the delusional one?

[gillianchung]

Harlow Brown: Yeah, I am not saying I need compensation or damages. The law is in place in hopes of encouraging better corporate responsibility = preventing these problems in the future.

Please get my point, I am not arguing for damages or compensation. The point is, SI has completely ignored the Mac user base by releasing a flawed Mac game with its basic right clicking function failing. Has SI breached a contract, and if it hasn't, are there any safeguards in the law to prevent SI from being careless?

[gillianchung]

And if there aren't any safeguards to prevent SI from this in the future, is there a need for legislation to prevent it?

Wouldn't this have been avoided if SI would have just pushed the release date back just like in CM DAYS?

It's a very complicated issue. And its sad that the Mac users are neglected in this way.

[Pope of Pot, King of Nothi]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring

[gillianchung]

I'm going to sleep and probably not going to come back for a while, but thanks for the debate and insight by everyone. SI can lock this thread if they feel threatened, since it was just a friendly discussion.

Well, I would like to conclude, that the law as it currently stands, may not have any safeguards against what SI has done by releasing a Mac version of the game that is not suitable to be played correctly. SI should have pushed the release date back until Mac users were able to have their patch on release day, to prevent such a discussion of this in the future. SI should have had the corporate responsibility to realize that although Mac users are in the minority, it will still upset their most loyal fanbase.

And as Harlow pointed out, the only remedy would be to just refund your game and be happy with FM 2008.

Thanks.

gillianchung

[Come Clarity]

Which college of University of London would that be?

[Warren]

For me it is very easy. I have returned the game, got my money back, and will never buy anything from these people again.

[djwilko6]

Completely rediculous.

If you want to sue SI, why not every other company who has NO Mac support, or Linux support, or who spelt something wrong in a game, or ever released a patch for any game, ever.

I think you should find a computer programmer or anyone involved in computers and ask them how programs work, I've just finished a course which involved program at an extremely basic level with the language Pascal, its all about trial and error, sometimes things get missed in the code, sometimes their are things out of your control.

Ultimately if any company takes notice of you, or anyone actually tries to do what you are suggest and are successful, we'll see the end of PC gaming, then expect a huge number of people across the globe wanting to kill you.

[djwilko6]

Oh and since you cant be bothered to go back and edit a post insted of spamming (which is technically what you have done): http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=62662

Your precious patch will be out on Monday.

[iglesia]

I also believe this is moaning and complaining.

I'd have to agree with you.

[MachinegunHead]

You are missing the important fact that Sports Interactive selling you a LICENSE to use their product, not the product itself. As such the Sales of Goods Act 1979 does not apply.

You make the decision as a consumer to purchase a license for their product, and if the product does not run on your computer due to limitations with your system, or some hidden trojans that you were not aware of, then the producer is not at blame.

Let me give you an example (with a good, not a license, no less!):

Just say there is a system which allows you to translate your height into an equivalent shoe size. I.e. 6'0" = size 12 shoes. (equivalent to req/min specs on a computer game)

Now say you are 6'0" tall and you buy a pair of size 12 shoes, and when you put them on you realise they don't fit because you had both your feet amputated. (your computer doesn't meet the standards for which the game was design, despite meeting nominal standards)

Trying to sue the company for the shoes not fitting your amputated limbs would never hold up in a court. Just as saying, "I bought a license for this game, and it works on some computers, but not mine, and I think that the product AS A WHOLE is faulty, as such I wish to sue SI for breaching the SoG Act 1979!", will get you the response, "Buy a new computer, take the issue up with the companies support staff, or sell your license. The product is not at fault, as the problems you experience aren't experienced by ALL."

[DJ]

OP is a good example of why most people hate lawyers, to be brutally honest. 'We probably got a case here, let's explore ways of making this company suffer'.

Reality check: SI are and always have been exemplary in customer service. I know very few examples of software that comes with an 'enhancement pack' (OK, OK, that was a howler. Marketing speak ftl. A lot of marketing people are scum, too, by the way.), a patch on the day of release. There's nothing stopping any company to wait for a while before bringing one out (so they have far more 'beta' information from the end users) and know what? It's not even mandatory to release patches. I know of several programs that have been released and never patched.

Anyway, SI's track record shows that they will do everything they can to remedy the situation, but spoken like a true shark lawyer, you're after their hides because you can. Disgusting attitude.

Your 'case' falls flat on its face, by the way. The game is playable. The authentication will be remedied before you can say 'reasonable time to remedy'. Then SI are not directly responsible for the error - if you want to sue, go for the real perps. But that's too difficult innit? Easier to smear a good companies name because you are sooooooooo frustrated that you can't play the game before the other kids on your block.

Lawyers

[Guest]

Gillianchung, are you able to quantify your loss due to the perceived delay in being able to install a piece of entertainment software considering the installation is not time critical?

[telemahos]

@ gillianchung:

I would like to congratulate you mate for the creative thinking.

I don't think I totally agree with all you write, but it is time that someone would start pointing out the limitations of this situation, which is for the general good. Overall, we expect that SI would be accountable and responsible to its customers and fanbase.

It is simple. We may love the game, but we are not to be treated like idiots in the name of a quick profit or because there is not adequate business organisation. Better service and better product is an issue!

I am a big fan of this game but I am also a citizen, being concerned about rights and constant abuses... (Today, by the way, I had to buy the game in a terrible ASDA shop for £29.71 although they advertise it online for £24.91, and since then no one in their company wants to hear about my complaint!).

Well.. Don't pay attention to the stupid way many others have reacted here.. Looking to some of the replies above, many posts are trying to dismiss your approach (right or wrong) by bullying you, by offering no counter-arguments and by showing their loud ignorance..

I am really amazed how many replies here fit a 'middle ages' personal profile!... Some of us try to improve the service and the products we receive in general, and some just like shouting 'burn the witch'... And I'm not happy that they have been trying to push you away.. To put it in a simple language for few people: Just let the man think... and either join in, or shut you mouth!

Be sure SI is listening. Because I'm sure it cares both for its own interests and our own satisfaction, which means money for them.

t.

[Serpico]

So I'm the only one that's appalled that there's a student up posting at 5.30am who's clearly not drunk or under the influence of creative, mind altering substances?

[Marc Duffy]

@ gillianchung:

I would like to congratulate you mate for the creative thinking.

I don't think I totally agree with all you write, but it is time that someone would start pointing out the limitations of this situation, which is for the general good. Overall, we expect that SI would be accountable and responsible to its customers and fanbase.

It is simple. We may love the game, but we are not to be treated like idiots in the name of a quick profit or because there is not adequate business organisation. Better service and better product is an issue!

I am a big fan of this game but I am also a citizen, being concerned about rights and constant abuses... (Today, by the way, I had to buy the game in a terrible ASDA shop for £29.71 although they advertise it online for £24.91, and since then no one in their company wants to hear about my complaint!).

Well.. Don't pay attention to the stupid way many others have reacted here.. Looking to some of the replies above, many posts are trying to dismiss your approach (right or wrong) by bullying you, by offering no counter-arguments and by showing their loud ignorance..

I am really amazed how many replies here fit a 'middle ages' personal profile!... Some of us try to improve the service and the products we receive in general, and some just like shouting 'burn the witch'... And I'm not happy that they have been trying to push you away.. To put it in a simple language for few people: Just let the man think... and either join in, or shut you mouth!

Be sure SI is listening. Because I'm sure it cares both for its own interests and our own satisfaction, which means money for them.

t.

I agree with your thinking, except where you think we are treating people like idiots in the name of quick profit. THis is not the case.

[kam99]

the fact that the servers were overloaded and certain tech issues prevented some from activating immediately has ZERO relevance to 'not fit for purpose'

carry on with your sad little delusions though... its your loss.

--b--

Is it really necessary for you to be offensive to other people because you disagree with their views?

I do not consider I have any 'sad little delusions'.

I bought a game that would not work as advertised. It wan't just that it wasn't 'activating immediately'. I (like others) tried for several hours to activate it without success. Out of frustration I asked for my money back. What is delusional about that?

[Diego_Werderdona]

Reading through this it saddens me how many have completely missed the point and have simply resorted to insulting lawyer stereotypes. The point is not that the OP plans on suing SI, but that the law is there to protect consumers in this case. Companies should stand behind their products and be liable when they are not fit and there should always be people testing this, rather than apathetically standing by.

However, I think that SI has always had excellent customer support and truly aspire to develop products they are proud of. I think they realise the shortcomings of 09 and are actively trying to fix the situation, how many other companies are so involved in their official forums and offer release day patches?

In the case of the Mac patch, and I am a Mac user affected by this, I think we should be able to accept that under the stress and time constraints SI are currently experiencing, one small mistake can lead to a delay like this. The patch will be here as soon as it can be, and SI are really doing their best to assist with technical support.

[Deyong]

Well I am a mac user, I popped the disc in and BAM ! no problems loading or playing to my hearts content.

I think maybe whilst you seem to be experienced in the sales act of 1979, your a bit of a novice when it comes to macs.

also whilst we're on the subject of the sales act, your slightly flawed in the process.

SI do not sell the game, the retailers do. SI are merely the software house. your contract is with the retailer, who in turn has a contract with Sega, who in turn has a contract with SI.

and you know what, SI for years and years have offered support to the community, updates, a great forum to which I haven't seen on any other game. you have to realise, the game run on a certain spec machine may be fine, but there are so many variables some people might have difficulties, and SI have this forum to help. you can't say fairer than that !

so if you wish to look the idiot and sue, go ahead, I will look forward to laughing my socks off when I see the newspaper article

[Meefloaf]

i didnt see anywhere on the case or in the booklet where it said you had to a)have the internet b)activate via the internet or c)spend hours ****ing around

[MrPompey]

So I'm the only one that's appalled that there's a student up posting at 5.30am who's clearly not drunk or under the influence of creative, mind altering substances?

Judging by the trash he's written its clear he IS under the influence of something....

[flu3]

the reactions of certain members of this forum baffle me; they take their post counts far too seriously & act as if that gives them seniority on subjects by dismissing peoples issues out of hand without even such an attempt as to de-construct a just argument.

whether SI "wanted" to or not; they released a game yesterday that could very well be considered in breach of the Sales of Goods Act. i (like most of the people who visit this site are) am in a way addicted to buying FM/CM; we all buy it year upon year in the hope that the game gets better; & facts are SI don't have to worry about us because we fools continues to swallow the nonsense but they do need to worry about the fair-weather buyers they were attempting to capture through the 3d match engine & the glitz of the YouTube campaign that will no doubt feel let down by the poor product they have received. the same people they aimed to impress & spent so much time advertising towards won't be too impressed with what they got but we'll be back next year so who cares.

for those that believe the OP is wasting his time, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". though sueing SI may be abit far off as the OP said, what kind of country would we live in if we all took such a poor service for things we pay for. people keep countering with "SI are doing their best to solve the problems" but aren't they problems of their own making? SI aren't doing anything they shouldn't be; i don't continually give my postman a pat on the back for delivering my post late. should i accept a McChicken sandwich @ McDonald's instead of the Big Mac i ordered because, "they'll try & do better next time"? what baffles me is that the majority of people would argue over things are far less significance (be relative) & value yet they seem happy to accept this from SI because "sir" Miles Jacobs has answered one of their posts in the past.

i see it like this, the whole implementation of authentication was done with selfish intentions by SI/SEGA, even if the system worked perfectly it still inconveniences the "consumer", & for what?! i'm not for piracy etc. but this system has been implemented to the dis-service of the "consumer". the code's supposedly been cracked already so what use is a Authentication system that took less than 24hours to break?!

[Johnyboy]

Worst instalition ever u have to admit

[djwilko6]

Worst instalition ever u have to admit

Nope, the install went fine, it was the activating AFTER the install.

[Domark Rules]

if i return the game to sega will they at least give me money back

is there a returns ref number?

i dont want it - it keeps crashing

thanks

[neckus]

This is a ridiculous. Anyone who ever did any programming knows thats computerprograms tend te 'mess up'. Especially server-side coding. So this could mean that the servers at SoftAnchor could easy been knocked offline to either overuse of error in coding. This however does not mean that SIGAMES did anything wrong. I spend all day the day before yesterday and yesterday helping out numerous people with activating their game. And I managed to get ALL 14 copies activated and all those people are now playing FM2009. It takes time, but it works.

ps. I'm actually still waiting for my own copy though, darn postal service!

[Pompey1978]

Well, this thread does nothing to dispel my mental image of law students. How very tedious.

For the record, I installed, registered and patched my game in the space of about 15 minutes at about 9am yesterday morning.

It's worth the wait people, I'm thoroughly enjoying it!

[Guest]

Worst instalition ever u have to admit

6 minutes to download the patch yesterday morning & 10 minutes to install & authenticate the game this morning, people should have just waited for the rush to end & gone to the pub last night.

[olivne]

I don't think the main issue is wether or not customers who bought the MAC version have a case against SI or not.

I do think that the main intention was to try & find a more positive way of showing SI that the way that the lastest release (FM09) was handled rubbed many of their loyal fanbase the wrong way, hoping it would reach the ears of the relevant brass in SI (which it seams to have).

Personally I got lucky, as I read a topic on DRM verification & had decided to hold off on buying the game for a few days in order to see how it all works out (It reminded me that FM08 had technical/match engine problems for the first few months).

I'm gussing that eveything will work out fine in a few days (weeks?) & we'll all calm down.

[Meefloaf]

well i'm still having trouble today fella, admittedly with the graphics, but my comp should be up to playing it and i don't see why i should have to download some monster file from microsoft, when i shouldn't have any problems with the game, other than trying to unwrap the cellophane

[telemahos]

I agree with your thinking, except where you think we are treating people like idiots in the name of quick profit. THis is not the case.

Thank you for saying that.

I did not imply you do, I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. But that people should stand up for their rights for a better service and good products, against the general market and corporate tendencies today. This is a good for both, us and the companies. (So, I ask from people to appreciate what Gillian is writing)

I do not know your company as much as I know the game but I have every faith in you!

You seem to genuinely care (i.e. reading comments, reacting to suggestions in a way that other companies rarely do), to rectify problems quickly (the activation problem was rather solved in less than a working day), and there are several people around here commenting on your traditionally very good customer service.

kind regards

t.

[markcox7]

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

Go back to bed and stop thinking.

i second that, lets face it, they must get pretty fed up of the complaints so far, if we start talking about sueing them, then what can we look forward to in november 2009, no FM10 boooooooooooo

[AnalogBoy]

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.

Arrows in FM09 are different to FM08 and previous games. This time, all they represent is a graphical version of the "forward runs" instruction from the player instructions menu.

Maybe if you'd paid attention when SI were listing all the new features, or maybe read the manual, you'd have found this out. "Don't be ignorant".

[Mug_OUFC]

Gillian

I work in law. FM2009 is a licence to use a software program, it is not a sale of goods or services. Licences are a completely different animal to sale of goods and are viewed very differently by law. It is impossible for software producers to produce error free software.

You will need to refer to the licence agreement which you accepted on installation to ascertain your exact rights. Any liability accepted, if there is any, will almost certainly be limited to the purchase price, and for that you need to go back to your retailer, not SI. In any case - what damages could you reasonably claim for?

In any case - the right mouse button not working is such an insignificant error (and remediable - SI will fix it - at their own cost) that it could not possibly be viewed as a fundamental breach of the licence agremeent, especially as SI would be able to demonstrate reasonable endeavours to rectify the fault.

You should probably wait for the lecture in your course on licencing agreements and e-commerce and then you may have a better understanding of the position.

[Matty Kyle]

Some people are so ignorant.

The guy hs made some good points, whilst it might be a bit off, he clearly states that he knows this might be the case, and he clearly states that he wants to learn in the process.

Not once did he state that he was going to sue, or look for damages/compensation, he has merely brought up a topical(interesting) conversation that might not be the to the tastes of some but isn't that the case with everything.

Leave the the lad and any others who want to participate to do so, want to reply, be constructive or don't bother.

[GRANTOMAC]

Just to clear something up.

Judging by the username, the person who started this thread is a woman.

Just think she'd rather get called her/she than his/he

[GillsMan]

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.

Kudos on the informative post.

However, I work in regulation myself (dealing with the CAP Code, and various legislation administered by the TSD, OFT, Ofcom, etc), and I can tell you that, for too many reasons to mention in one post (many of which have already been mooted), SI and Sega have not breached the SoGA (in my opinion, and based on past challenges under this legislation, etc). Yes, you could mount a challenge, but I'm quite certain it would fail.

Sale of Goods Act is always the one mentioned by people - it's the one most people have heard of. However, if you did want to mount a challenge, would the Consumer Protection Regulations (2008) not be more relevant (not to mention up to date)?

[Kriss]

I think talk of sueing etc. are way ott.

I would be interested after the event to know the actual numbers.

What percentage of buyers authenticated okay?

What percentage of those with problems were down to the user and for what reasons? (some will have been)

What were the actual reasons for the failures which weren't down to the user? (lack of server capacity, lack of phone line capacity etc)

We can't judge from these forums the scale of the failures for certain.

Also very important is how long it takes to resolve all those problems which aren't user generated.

Most importantly of all, can all the lessons learnt from this release be used to lead to a trouble free release next time or is this methodology actually unviable?

Those are the really relevant issues to FM lovers and while we won't get immediate answers we should get answers as soon as they are available.

There's no gain to anyone in indulging in a slag fest of Sega/SI/Steam etc, what's required is speedy resolution of the current issues and then a proper inquest by those concerned followed by a statement on future plans and intent.

[r0x0r]

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.

Bugs in games and flaws in the analytical engines of games don't make them not fit for purpose, or every single publisher would be liable under the act.

Just as if you buy an icecream it is reasonable to expect it to melt, if you buy software it's expected that it might not be perfect.

The game plays, doesn't it? You put it in your mac and it loads up. You can play games.

If the guy at the shop sold it to you as "perfect and bug free" after you told him thats what you wanted, you may then have a claim against the shop. SI didn't advertise it as a flawless experience though, but rather as a PC game. A reasonable person would expect there will always be problems with software, or every single software publisher in existence would be liable.

As for the "phone up or go online to activate" argument, I have a feeling that a one time internet connection or call to verify a product is legally purchased would be considered reasonable, or the EU courts would have already hurt their favourite whipping boy Microsoft over it.

[r0x0r]

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.

When you put the game in and install it, does it work?

Did SI make any claims that it would be bug free, flaw free and crash free?

So there's an issue you know about that causes a crash if you perform a simple action. Surely you should simply not perform that action? Software has bugs. It doesn't have to be bug free to be fit for purpose. Same with LCD screens. They get dead pixels at times. It doesn't have to be dead pixel free to be considered sellable, it merely has to not be "too bad". If FM09 didn't work on Macs you'd have an argument, but it does work. You just found a way to crash it.