Gta 4

superscaper

sainthalo wrote: »

Legally you're totally and utterly wrong. Here's what you don't know:

Sale of Goods Act 1979
Actions for Breach of the Contract
51 Damages for non-delivery
(1)Where the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller for damages for non-delivery.
(2)The measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the seller’s breach of contract.
(3)Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered or (if no time was fixed) at the time of the refusal to deliver.

Unfortunately it's you that's completely wrong. If you re read their post they bought it from Play. Since play.com is not in the UK there's no point quoting UK law any more than if it was bought in China or the USA. :rolleyes:

Play.com for those that don't know is located in Jersey and isn't even in the EU never mind the UK. I'm well aware of both the Sale of Goods Act and also the Distance Seller Regulations but I also know that they are UK laws and only have UK juristiction (even within the UK there are limitations and differences, e.g. Scotland has different time period for claiming allowance). Perhaps before assuming I don't know something you check first as to why I said something. In fact anyone looking at my post history will see I'm usually the first to quote the SoGA. So there was a specific reason why I didn't here.

Kamran

superscaper wrote: »

Unfortunately it's you that's completely wrong. If you re read their post they bought it from Play. Since play.com is not in the UK there's no point quoting UK law any more than if it was bought in China or the USA. :rolleyes:

Play.com for those that don't know is located in Jersey and isn't even in the EU never mind the UK. I'm well aware of both the Sale of Goods Act and also the Distance Seller Regulations but I also know that they are UK laws and only have UK juristiction (even within the UK there are limitations and differences, e.g. Scotland has different time period for claiming allowance). Perhaps before assuming I don't know something you check first as to why I said something. In fact anyone looking at my post history will see I'm usually the first to quote the SoGA. So there was a specific reason why I didn't here.

well played.

CloudRuler

superscaper wrote: »

Unfortunately it's you that's completely wrong. If you re read their post they bought it from Play. Since play.com is not in the UK there's no point quoting UK law any more than if it was bought in China or the USA. :rolleyes:

Play.com for those that don't know is located in Jersey and isn't even in the EU never mind the UK. I'm well aware of both the Sale of Goods Act and also the Distance Seller Regulations but I also know that they are UK laws and only have UK juristiction (even within the UK there are limitations and differences, e.g. Scotland has different time period for claiming allowance). Perhaps before assuming I don't know something you check first as to why I said something. In fact anyone looking at my post history will see I'm usually the first to quote the SoGA. So there was a specific reason why I didn't here.

That's not entirely true, if only conflict of laws were so simple. If the place in question is not in the EU, that rules out use of the Brussels I Regulations but not the Rome Convention.

Though really for a game it's not worth looking into in that kind of detail.

superscaper

CloudRuler wrote: »

That's not entirely true, if only conflict of laws were so simple. If the place in question is not in the EU, that rules out use of the Brussels I Regulations but not the Rome Convention.

Though really for a game it's not worth looking into in that kind of detail.

So you say it would rule out one EU law but not another EU law, why would that be? I don't see how an EU law would apply to a non-EU legal juristiciton. Surely if it did it would equally apply to USA or China. And it still doesn't mean that a UK law applies to a non-UK place. So I don't see which bit isn't true?

Item bought from Jersey, therefore only Jersey law to support you. Jersey has no Sale of Goods Act. And I don't see how ANY EU law or convention can apply or would have juristiction outside the EU.

CloudRuler

superscaper wrote: »

So you say it would rule out one EU law but not another EU law, why would that be? I don't see how an EU law would apply to a non-EU legal juristiciton. Surely if it did it would equally apply to USA or China. And it still doesn't mean that a UK law applies to a non-UK place. So I don't see which bit isn't true?

Item bought from Jersey, therefore only Jersey law to support you. Jersey has no Sale of Goods Act. And I don't see how ANY EU law or convention can apply or would have juristiction outside the EU.

Because the issue of jurisdiction isn't clear cut though it's really more of an issue for commercial contracts than others but stretches into otherl areas such as tort. Art 2 of the Rome Convention permits application where the country is a non-EU country however Brussels I applies where one party or the dispute has a connection to the EU so actually my statement earlier as to whether the company itself is in the EU was incorrect, it's broader than that. Just going over my notes now lol. Whether it applies to this particular instance isn't something I'm making a comment on, my point is just that contracts aren't necessarily governed by the law of the country where one party is based. It's relation to consumer law would be something you'd have to look up but generally in the area of commercial contracts it's as follows:

It's not particularly easy to explain but I'll try and give a brief overview. Firstly you'd see whether the issue falls within the Brussels I jurisdiction or not. If it is outside of Brussels I jurisdiction is discretionary and presence, submission and Rule 6 CPR will come into play. According to Rule 6 its possible that English law will apply where the contract was made in England, through an agent in England, governed by English law, English choice of law clause, breach took place in England or Wales. To be inside Brussels I it has to be a civil or commercial matter. This in itself has caused problems seeing as civil and commercial law varies between Member States thus the ECJ defines this. There are matters excluded from Brussels I stipulated in Art 1(2). Jurisdiction under Brussels I may be found due to domicile and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments order. Place of performance and whether it is a contractual matter can be used.

There are instances of exclusive jurisdiction but choice of law also exists.

The Rome Convention is according to Art 2 able to apply where the party is not an EU resident or resident of a signatory state.

Just for a case example check out Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co. v. IRI International Corp. where the parties had seemingly agreed upon American or Iranian law and the facts suggested it American law but ultimately English law was applied.

Anyway that's a very brief overview, largely of Brussels I, would take too long to go into any substantial detail but my basic point is that jurisdiction isn't always clear cut.