> when a later and unforeseen event impedes the buyer's purpose for entering into the contract
> it is "not lightly to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains" To quote the top few results I got searching online for "law of frustration":
By this logic almost anyone could back out of a long term contract: "I didn't expect to still be in business 24 years later when I gave you that 25 year warranty!" I am also not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt a court would accept "I didn't expect to actually have to live up to my end of the deal!" to be a valid change in circumstances. Is it normal to receive this service? I'm thankful for the two decades of updates and support, not upset that the author didn't believe mIRC would still be relevant to anyone after nearly a quarter of a century. Nothing I've ever purchased has gotten 23 years of updates and support from its creator, much less something that cost $20, even in 2015, 2005, or 1995 values of $20. If a local small business sold me anything for US$20, provided continuous support for it for more than two decades, and then asked if I could pay another $20 to continue to get support for it, I'd tell them it was still at my parents' house and probably got sold in a garage sale years ago. > If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it? I've had friends who still owe me more money for something two decades ago than the author of mIRC does for my "lifetime" license, and they don't give me anxiety either. Not all offenses against humanity are equal. It's possible to acknowledge that the act is equally unethical and also relatively much smaller in impact. I prefer admitting that the business model needs to change over shutting down the product or doing name-only new product launches to get around lifetime licenses. I don't consider "author forced to work on product in perpetuity at a loss" an option, so I didn't list it here. This is functionally equivalent to #2, but also adheres to the letter of the original agreement.
Doesn't match the letter of the original license, but project gets to continue and author can continue working on it.ģ) Create an "mIRC 2.0" out of nowhere that isn't any different than an incremental update, but gets presented as an all-new product. Lifetime agreement honored.Ģ) Be honest, admit lifetime agreement isn't workable going forward, and come up with new license terms. Author wants to continue supporting it, but the business model no longer works. It is honestly shocking the number of posters here that seem to think it's completely morally ok to renege on the deal with these lifetime subscribers because the author didn't make much profit?
0 kommentar(er)
