Gamestation claims souls

[MGB Boy]

Article said:

GameStation added the "immortal soul clause" to online purchases earlier this month stating customers granted them the right to claim their soul.


While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher.

The store claims this show 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a website before they make a purchase.

Bosses also say they will not be enforcing their rights and will now email customers nullifying any claim on their soul.

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/7500_shoppers_un...

All I can say is, go Gamestation!

Edited by MGB Boy on Wednesday 14th April 23:20

[ScottishSamurai]

Excellent stuff. Gamestation seem to have their heads screwed on when it comes to customers

[Frederick]

GameStation said:

By placing an order via this web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions. We reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction.

Click here to nulify your soul transfer.

That's verbatim - "Nulify" indeed (that's the "PH Spelling Police Officer" coming out in me!)

The first day of the fourth month 2010 AD, they'll be going some to supersede that next year!!

[John D.]

Very good.

They'd probably catch me with that

[Jasandjules]

Of course very few people read the terms and conditions.

When I download a game from the Playstation store it takes about 10 seconds just to scroll down the T&Cs, it'd take me ages to read it..........

[mrmr96]

Jasandjules said:

Of course very few people read the terms and conditions.

When I download a game from the Playstation store it takes about 10 seconds just to scroll down the T&Cs, it'd take me ages to read it..........

Anyone remember that the same used (and still is) true of things like credit applications. And then the 'powers that be' decieded this was unfair as detail was being hidden and we therefore got the 'summary box' with things like APR and other key facts. Well maybe the same logic should be applied to other sets of T+C's where an independant legal team reads what the company's T+C's say, and then they produce a summary box of the key things, cross referenced to the full version in case you want to delve into them more. This legal team will be independant (so THEY, not the company decide what's important) but they would be paid for by the company. The co's won't do this alone, so legislation would be needed.

Anyone think that sounds like a reasonable idea?

[davido140]

mrmr96 said:

Jasandjules said:

Of course very few people read the terms and conditions.

When I download a game from the Playstation store it takes about 10 seconds just to scroll down the T&Cs, it'd take me ages to read it..........

Anyone remember that the same used (and still is) true of things like credit applications. And then the 'powers that be' decieded this was unfair as detail was being hidden and we therefore got the 'summary box' with things like APR and other key facts. Well maybe the same logic should be applied to other sets of T+C's where an independant legal team reads what the company's T+C's say, and then they produce a summary box of the key things, cross referenced to the full version in case you want to delve into them more. This legal team will be independant (so THEY, not the company decide what's important) but they would be paid for by the company. The co's won't do this alone, so legislation would be needed.

Anyone think that sounds like a reasonable idea?

Sounds good to me, the "key facts" box on financial agreement is an excellent idea.

Edited by davido140 on Thursday 15th April 09:24