Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
Yes, you do. Again, you've shown you don't understand the UK's law surrounding this, asking rather than making incorrect pronoucements might be a good idea on your part.
|
No, you
claim you do. The law doesn't go by what DawnFalcon claims though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
You seem to remain unable to differentiate between a warrantee (which can indeed be easily invalidated) and the separate statutory requirement that goods be fit for purpose (which is hard to invalidate)
"Authorised personnel" have very little to do with the second.
|
Incorrect.
Anytime you make any significant changes to a product those changes must be done by an authorised or at the very least
qualified person in order for you to claim the product remains fit for purpose.
Take the car example again if you will. Should you turbocharge your car yourself and the engine blows up you can not turn around and claim "but it should still be fit for purpose even if my warranty is void". Sorry, no, if you blow up your car by using some joe smoe down the road with no qualifications then you don't have a leg to stand on legally. It really is as simple as that.
Now if you can simply point out any authorised person or at the very least a person with recognised qualifications that is able to hack and mod the Xbox, that would be terrific.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DwanFalcon
No, that is all they have to do, as I've stated repeatedly. If the phrase is in the EULA as presented to the customer is entered as evidence, that's sufficient. One of the defences is that the phrase is not one of those considered unfair, but that defence has to be made by the company, if they enter no defence then they will fail on that count!
|
You should re-read your own post.
Post #257 page 18
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
And no, the judge does not have to rule anything or the defendent do more that point out that the clause is one on the list.
|
Sorry to tell you this but the defendant is
not required to point out which clause the
claimant is claiming is in the EULA and is one of the automatically unfair ones.
The
claimant must do that!
Ergo, the burden of proof for showing that the clause the
claimant claims is in the EULA is on the claimant. Admittedly that is a simple matter of presenting the EULA and pointing to the clause but it is still the
claimant who has to do this.
You are correct in asserting that the
defendant then has the burden of proof in showing that the clause is not actually one of the automatically unfair ones.
I still find it suspicious though that all these clear cut automatically unfair clauses are supposedly there and yet no one has pointed it out in court. Ever!
Cheers,
PKFFW