Online product/services contract

[Achaean]

I'm unsure if this question belongs in here, or in the business section so please forgive me if this isn't correct.

On the website linked at the bottom, an employee has written a summary at the top of the terms of service stating that if they shut down the servers or go out of business that they will give the customers the source, however it's not actually written in the ToS so the summary at the top is basically a lie, this same statement has also been written in other places numerous times (I'll also link). I was wondering if they are actually bound by this statement that they have made or because it doesn't appear to be written in the ToS? I've heard people say that because it's not actually within the ToS, then they don't have to abide by it and that makes this false advertising with that summary stating otherwise, and other people have said that because an employee has written that (and it has been on there for years, as well as on their forums) that it makes it binding. So here I am, wondering which one is true.

(For some reason this doesn't want to post, I think it may be due to the links so i'll alter them a bit and try again).

Xxxx

Xxxxxx

Thank you for your time reading this, I look forward to reading any responses.

 

[quincy]

I'm unsure if this question belongs in here, or in the business section so please forgive me if this isn't correct.

On the website linked at the bottom, an employee has written a summary at the top of the terms of service stating that if they shut down the servers or go out of business that they will give the customers the source, however it's not actually written in the ToS so the summary at the top is basically a lie, this same statement has also been written in other places numerous times (I'll also link). I was wondering if they are actually bound by this statement that they have made or because it doesn't appear to be written in the ToS? I've heard people say that because it's not actually within the ToS, then they don't have to abide by it and that makes this false advertising with that summary stating otherwise, and other people have said that because an employee has written that (and it has been on there for years, as well as on their forums) that it makes it binding. So here I am, wondering which one is true.

(For some reason this doesn't want to post, I think it may be due to the links so i'll alter them a bit and try again).

XXXXXX
XXXXXX

Thank you for your time reading this, I look forward to reading any responses.

Have the servers ever shut you or anyone you know down or has the company gone out of your or anyone else's business that you know of? If not, you do not know if what is written as a preface to the agreement is false advertising or a lie or not.

Terms of Service can be legally binding but a court will consider many factors when determining if a legal contract has been formed. One factor looked at is the conspicuousness of the terms of service. Another is if action must be taken to agree to the terms (e.g., click to agree). Another is if there can be no use, or only limited use, without agreement to the terms (e.g., if the agreement must be "signed" prior to use). Another is the clarity of the terms (no ambiguity). The list goes on.

I imagine if someone were to challenge the agreement's preface as a legally binding part of the contract (i.e., if they did not receive source code when the servers shut them down), they would have good support for that argument. It seems to me that the company has made it clear that they agree to provide source code if certain conditions are met.



(The links you provided, by the way, can be viewed as advertising so that is the reason you had problems posting. The links will be removed from your post and then your post will be returned to its place in the thread.)

 

[Achaean]

Ah, I wondered if that was the reason for the post not going through the first time, though I only posted them so you guys can actually view the material for yourself in this regard.

Have the servers ever shut you or anyone you know down or has the company gone out of your or anyone else's business that you know of? If not, you do not know if what is written as a preface to the agreement is false advertising or a lie or not.

One of the bigger groups using the engine has made the public announcement saying that their servers are being switched off, and that they have to figure out a plan for the future, they have not indicated that they are being given the source but from what I've read, the company seems to think that they don't actually have to give out the source for free to anyone regardless of circumstances.

There are news that something bad is going to be happening, and that everyone will be losing their access to their games which sparked up this discussion within the community. Part of that is agreeing to the terms when you open the software, which doesn't actually indicate the source part being given out under those circumstances, however a lot of people would have taken the employee stating those in what I linked previously and have mentioned here as a security blanket so they do not lose years of work at the whim of the company closing down the services.

So in short, because they have publicly written that source would be given out if they do close the doors (as that is what appears will be the case), that it can be challenged and could actually hold up in court?

 

[quincy]

... One of the bigger groups using the engine has made the public announcement saying that their servers are being switched off, and that they have to figure out a plan for the future, they have not indicated that they are being given the source but from what I've read, the company seems to think that they don't actually have to give out the source for free to anyone regardless of circumstances.

There are news that something bad is going to be happening, and that everyone will be losing their access to their games which sparked up this discussion within the community. Part of that is agreeing to the terms when you open the software, which doesn't actually indicate the source part being given out under those circumstances, however a lot of people would have taken the employee stating those in what I linked previously and have mentioned here as a security blanket so they do not lose years of work at the whim of the company closing down the services.

So in short, because they have publicly written that source would be given out if they do close the doors (as that is what appears will be the case), that it can be challenged and could actually hold up in court?

Whether what is written in the preface would hold up in court as part of the enforceable part of the contract, or whether any portion of the contract will be found unenforceable, is something I can't tell you. Anything I tell you would just be more speculation added to the rumors circulating and the fears being expressed in your community.

It appears to me that the preface was written by, or at least authorized by, the company and, as it is prominently placed at the beginning of the stated agreement, to me it seems reasonable to assume that what is stated in the preface could be relied on by users as a promise made by the company to the user. That said, it will always be the terms of the contract itself that should be looked at and relied on. All terms need to be read carefully and considered prior to agreeing to them. If there appears to be a conflict of terms or an ambiguity in terms, or an omission, or a conflict between what is written and what is communicated orally, these conflicts or ambiguities or omissions need to be addressed and clarified, added or corrected before the agreement is signed.

That said, if the "bigger group" is saying that their servers are being switched off, this bigger group would be smart to consult with an attorney in their area for a review of the Terms of Service page and the written agreement, and for a review of all facts (including the reason for their servers being switched off).

Good luck to all of you.