They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Why you would recite arguments that refute yours is a mystery. You contest the definition of the term “sale” and so pull up the first Google search results from freedictionary.com and claim that definition is more persuasive than the definition used by the Government of the State of California (and likely the U.S. Federal Government since the IRS considers barter to be taxable income). It is relevant for the purpose of defining the term “sale”, as Blizzard uses that term without further clarification in their EULA/TOS and hence the substance of this argument. I can think of no stronger definition than that used by the governing body of the state in which Blizzard operates, as codified in legal documents (tax codes) which govern and regulate commerce, the section (“prohibited commercial uses”) under which the prohibited sales clause of Blizzard’s TOS appears.
The Term sale is defined in every legal dictionary. You are the only one that keeps bring up free Dictionary for some reason?
The State of California’s taxable income position on Barter is irrelevant to whether “sale” as defined by the Blizzard ToS is met by a third-party resource that is not considered a currency (choose your definition here too). You couldn’t quantify they are bartering to being with! Let alone making a sale
BARTER. A contract by which parties exchange
goods or commodities for other goods. Finker v.
Boyer, 331 Mo. 1242, 56 S.W.2d 372.
It differs from sale, in this : that in the latter transaction goods or property are always exchanged for money.
Guerreiro v. Peile, 3 Barn. & Ald. 617; Cooper v. State, 37
Ark. 418; Meyer v. Rousseau, 47 Ark. 460, 2 S. W. 112.
In a sale there is a fixed price; in a barter there is not.
Speigle v. Meredith, 4 Biss. 120, Fed.Cas.No.13,227.
-Blacks Legal Dictionary - applicable IN CONTRACT LAW TO DEFINE TERMS. ( i only have the 1968 version sorry, I don’t own new editions. Gladly provide the new one.
Parol Evidence Rule - All explained in materials and case law below.
Specific over General - All explained in the materials and case law below
expressio unius est exclusio alterius - all explained in materials and case law below.
Some great examples can be found in the following resources:
2014 guide to Contract interpretation - ReedSmith LLP New York
Great eample of an American overview on Contract interp complete with variable situations, sources, and case law citations.
Thomson Reuters, WestLaw Canada (I’m Canadian, but I am sure there is an US version)
Contract interpretation overview.
Another great overview.
I cant provide links yet, so check em out! No FreeDictionary required.
Once you take a look at those we can discuss the difficulties proving ANY ToS breach without clearly defined terms. Sale doesn’t = Barter in the scope of a contract, whether it becomes taxable and whether it violates the ToS and completely different. The reason Blizzard will not touch anyone is because it is indefensible, due to ambiguous article provisions. Not because “they just don’t care”. It would be a hell of a battle for either party to prove
I bring up free dictionary because that is your source. You state, repeatedly and without question, that it is a stronger source than the contemporary legal definitions in tax codes of California. Your free dictionary “source” references Blacks Law, an outdated and noncontemporary source, and so you have latched onto that as well.
Look up the others terms provided any way you like. Happy to prove you wrong once you have the accurate information.
It is a stronger source…for the reasons out lined in my previous post. Which you oddly ignore, and contains many many sources. The definition is the same in all sources lol.
I only have Blacks 1968 edition. If you have the 2021 edition and can refute my definition of barter, do so. The Term Barter, as defined is what would be used in an Arbitration over the ToS --again, displayed by the information in my previous post.
Again, for the reasons outlined in my previous post…California Tax law is irrelevant
Exactly lol. You are getting there…Soon ™
Absence of Words : The absence of particular words in the contract should be considered in contract interpretation. This doctrine of contract interpretation is called Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. Translation of this latin is “inclusion of one is exclusion of the others.” Courts assume that if there is a list of items and an item was NOT included, then it should not be included
I’ll leave you to point out where the term “sale” is defined and specifically discludes “barter” in any of that. Good luck, and hold on tight to your 1968 edition
The definition of Sale and Barter are IN ANY legal dictionary. Pick the one you like most. Dealer’s choice!
Syncora Guar. Inc. v. EMC Mortg. Corp.
2012 WL 2326068
S.D.N.Y., 2012, June 19, 2012
Where a contract is unambiguous, however, the Court looks to the
language of the agreement and gives the words and phrases their plain
meaning, as “the instrument alone is taken to express the intent of the
parties.” Klos v. Lotnicze, 133 F.3d 164, 168 (2d Cir.1997).
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 639 F.3d 557, 568 (2d
Cir.2011) (stating that when interpreting a contract, the “court should
not find the language ambiguous on the basis of the interpretation
urged by one party, where that interpretation would strain the contract
language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning”).
Int’l Multifoods Corp. v. Commercial
Union Ins. Co.
309 F.3d 76, 87
(2d Cir. 2002)
Of course, the line between a contract that is so clear as a matter of
ordinary meaning that evidence of industry practice ultimately cannot
alter the apparent plain meaning of the language and a contract where
industry practice informs interpretation may prove difficult to draw. But
that is not to say that evidence of custom and usage is irrelevant to the
assessment of whether ambiguity exists.
GMG Capital Investments, LLC v.
Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P.
36 A.3d 776, 2012 WL 10916
Del.Supr., January 03, 2012
[A]n ambiguity exists when the provisions in controversy are fairly
susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more
different meanings.
Gen. Teamsters Local Union 326 v. City
of Rehoboth Beach
2012 WL 2337296
Del.Super.,2012, April 24, 2012
[T]here is an ambiguity in the contract . . . where a contract’s
provisions are reasonably susceptible to two or more meanings.
GRT, Inc. v. Marathon GTF Tech., Ltd.
2012 WL 2356489
Del. Ch., 2012. June 21, 2012
A contract is unambiguous if, by its plain terms, the provisions in
controversy are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning.
In re Motors Liquidation Co.
460 B.R. 603
Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y., November 28, 2011
In [whether a contract is ambiguous,] the court looks to see whether it
is: capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a
reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the
entire integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs,
practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the
particular trade or business.
In re Lehman Brothers Inc.
478 B.R. 570, 2012 WL 1995089
S.D.N.Y.,2012.
June 05, 2012
If reasonable minds could differ about the meaning of contractual
language, such language is ambiguous, see Lockheed Martin Corp., 639
F.3d at 69 (contractual language is ambiguous when it “is capable of
more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably
intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire
integrated agreement”).
Convergent Wealth Advisors LLC v.
Lydian Holding Co.
2012 WL 2148221
S.D.N.Y.,2012, June 13, 2012
“A trial judge must review a contract for ambiguity through the lens of
‘what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have
thought the contract meant.’”
Okay Good luck proving a Sale is a Barter in the scope of a ToS Contract, and that d2jsp or forum gold meets the standard of either against an Arbitrator.
So you are unwilling to provide a definition of “sale” yourself and are instead arguing that it is ambiguous. That’s a great shift as all your previous incoherent babbling has been such that it is defined by Blizzard (it’s not), it discludes barter (it doesn’t, as it is undefined), “sale” doesn’t include “barter” (again, the premise that “sale” is not in fact defined by Blizzard precludes all your other arguments).
Now rather you cite ambiguity terms that specify colloquial usage, reasonable persons, etc which doesn’t actually suit your argument unless you want to go the Fox route and claim that the average jsp user is not a reasonable person, since the average jsp user in plainly understood colloquial language refers to their transactions as “sales”.
The term sale is defined. I told you to provide whatever definition source you like.
Here, I will give you a couple.:
[S]ale is defined as the transfer of property or title for a price (or) the agreement by which such a transfer takes place . … “The four elements are parties competent to contract, mutual assent, a thing capable of being transferred, and a price in money paid or promised.”
-Duhaime
Definition of sale
(Entry 1 of 2)
1**:** the act of selling, specifically : the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price
-Merriam Webster
an [act] of [exchanging] something for [money]
-cambridge Dictionary
A "sale " consists in the passing of title from the [seller] to the [buyer] for a price.
** [Uniform Commercial Code]**
** § 2-106.**
It does, the contract would need to specifically state barter…OR be liable to previous precedents of case law due to the CONTRACT TERMS being ambiguous, not the definition.
As per my precedent information, provided through actual case law (while you provide no evidence), “Similarly, whether a statement is to be construed as an offer capable of direct acceptance to form a contract depends upon a reasonable, objective interpretation of the words used.”
This is the entire point of the argument dragging on weeks - d2jsp and Forum gold does not meet the Standard of the definitions of the words in the ToS–this is why it is not a violation, and the reason Blizzard does take action.
"In re Motors Liquidation Co.
460 B.R. 603
Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y., November 28, 2011
[In determining whether ambiguity exists, courts look at] “whether the
language of the contract and the inferences to be drawn from it are
susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation”
-You disagree, but have no Evidence from Blizzard to discredit this.
Your random, convoluted attempts to discredit me, do not discount an established legal precedent. I sent you a few decisions on Contractual ambiguity…there are hundreds.
you provide me only your opinion
There is a reason no one gets banned for using Forum gold: in the event that anyone appealed, Blizzard CANNOT prove it is a violation of the ToS.
I would actually read those decisions…if I were you.
I mean…at the end of the day, I am providing you with legal decisions, and you are telling me I’m wrong…so…yeah. You can have your opinion
Realistically, there is no way to prove either position until Blizzard:
A. Starts banning people for ToS violations, they appeal, and it goes to Arbitration.
or
B. Blizzard releases its official position that it is not a ToS Violation.
Until then, it’s safe to assume it’s not a ToS violation based on:
-past practice and lack of any reasonable position from blizzard proper
-legal precedent
-common sense
You’re providing cases where blanket ambiguity exists to support your position that ambiguity exists in the ToS regarding the definition of the term “sale”. I accept your terms of ambiguity. Therefore, under your case precedents, let us determine whether a person of reasonable intelligence considers transactions on d2jsp to be “sales” and whether or not such a definition is colloquially understood to be true:
Provide legal precedent which supports the position that forum gold meets the criteria of currency, money, and it can meet the established definition of “sale.”
Only with that precedent can you begin to argue anything is being sold - as per the ToS- on d2jsp for forum gold. Wonder how may topics say something like: “FT> _________insert trade here”
Forum gold is not money; therefore it’s reasonable to conclude you can’t buy or sell anything with it according to the definition of terms in the ToS.
Because I say “I sold a soj for a vex” did I reasonably sell it? Ban me!! LOL
No, I traded or bartered as you love so much… Which is not in the ToS - since my ambiguity criteria is accepted.
You are setting double standards. Either the term is ambiguous and thus subject only to the collective reasonable understanding of its users, or it isn’t. We accept that it is ambiguous, therefore any definitions we posit are irrelevant, per your own supplied precedents.
(P.s. every definition you provide establishes barters as sales, as you fail to understand what the term money means (money is not exclusive to cash) as well as outright refutes you, when referring to price, as clearly price can be in any term the parties agree to… but again this is all irrelevant since we agree to ambiguity and therefore these terms will be determined by the reasonable users)
Very clearly sales can be made without cash. They can be made with currency (which forum gold is, as defined by d2jsp and as used by its members). They can also be made with anything, as evidenced by colloquial uses (“Jack sold his cow for some magic beans.” “I’d sell my soul for a glass of water.” “I’m selling my items on d2jsp.”)
Further, it is clear, the terms “sale/sell” and “trade” are used interchangeably by the d2jsp community. As they are used interchangeably with such frequency, it is thus established that trades are sales and thus subject to the prohibited sales clause of the ToS.
This doesn’t make sense. The initial term “sale” is defined.
The precedents provide a means to argue whether trading items with forum gold constitute a “sale”. Definition very much. Matter….you stated Barter = sale.
That term is ambiguous. You have agreed it is ambiguous and therefore cannot be used.
The term “sale” and its definition is still important
Each thread you create on d2jsp you choose For Trade “FT>” or “ISO”. So…are you selling or trading or bartering?
The method someone used while speaking “I sold a soj” (when they actually traded it), doesn’t affect the definition, lol.
The precedents are applicable to the
Of the defined term.
Provide legal precedent of “sale” without money, and forum gold meeting the standard of “currency”, not your opinion.
your opinion is irrelevant to determining if forum gold breaks the ToS.
The interchangeable “ colloquial” terms do not determine the merits established by precedent…if you read any of the awards…
It’s the common definable interpretation. It’s not just whatever word people use for something.,
Which is…the definition of sale - no mention of trade or barter.
Even assuming the interchangeably of the words are relevant, (which is irrelevant, since you can call a cat a cow, but it’s not defined as a cow.) the fact they they are
You are arguing in circles. Again, either the term sale is ambiguous or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways and I will not entertain any further trolling.
You provided precedent that the most acceptable meaning of an ambiguous term (in this case, the term sale, being the only term mentioned in the ToS) is what a reasonable person understands it to be through common usage.
You cannot reneg on your acceptance of the ambiguity of the term sale.
If you wish to return to the actual definitions and discard the ambiguity, refer then to the previous hundred posts, or even your own supplied definitions, that establish that barters/trades qualify as sales, because the exchange is for a price regardless of what that price entails (USD, forum gold, bananas) or for money which is itself a term that encompasses many things, be it cash, currency (which forum gold is), or any medium of exchange (which forum gold is).
Your argument fails when confronted with actual definitions and it fails when confronted with colloquial usage in the event of contractual ambiguity.
No. I provided precedent of ambiguity as the argument, based on your assertion that Sale = Barter. And not of “common usage”…if you read the case law.
Common definition by a reasonable person. “We look at objective meaning”
Ross v. Thomas
That was the purpose of the conversation, lol.
You cannot reneg that ambiguity is the argument due to your misrepresentation of fact.
You have no legal precedent for this OPINION.
Price 1.
“the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment for something.”
Money
“Money is anything which is used as a medium of exchange and has legal sanction of the government . It possesses 100% liquidity. Everybody is legally bound to accept it. For instance, money in India consists of corns and paper notes.”
Definition of legal tender
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered
Just no,
if you disagree, provide legal precedent, NOT OPINION>
hasn’t happened yet. You haven’t provided one
irrelevant in contract law, as per the case law I provided…(which you didn’t read or provide any of your own)
No LeGaL pReCeDeNt is required to establish what a reasonable person would understand a term to mean when “cognizant of the customs,
practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business.” If one is familiar with such colloquial usage, it is clear and obvious that sales and trades (barters) are interchangeable terms especially in the context of sites/communities like d2jsp.
Merriam Webster, et all, for terms you wish to define are not LeGaL pReCeDeNt. So if you’re looking to establish LeGaL pReCeDeNt why are you supplying dictionaries instead of legal documents or court cases that specifically define the terms you are contesting? You’ve so far only supplied LeGaL pReCeDeNt for contractual ambiguity, nothing for sale.
And even so, you refuse to accept LeGaL pReCeDeNt when presented with real, actual legal documents (ie tax codes) that clearly define “sale” to include “exchange” and “barter”.
Neither is money exclusive to “government sanctioned currencies” or “legal tender”.
Is this a joke?
Customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business, does note equate sale to trade or vica versa, when discussing the ToS.
The common interpretation of sale… is to sell for money - D2jsp does not do this, FG is not money, by any legal term. If you have evidence of otherwise, provide it.
but you wont. You will provide more OPINION.
Terms in contract law is the definable term - you are intentionally obtuse, lol.
There are no Legal precedents on FG being a currency or that it constitutes a sale. That is the point
Sale doesn’t need precedent in my argument…because I accept the contractually definable term. YOU ARE THE PARTY STATING FG CONSTITUES A SALE. ITS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE since it’s not the coming interpretation- obtuse x2
Tax codes to not affect the term “sale” in a contract law due to the pRecEdEnts I HaVe ProVided; California tax statues on IRS returns for barter don’t change that…You havent met the standard of Sale, let alone barter. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE
Provide any PRECEdent that a third party, website specfic “currency” meets the definition of money. NOT MORE OPINIONS.
You definitely are! Zero evidence beyond trying to present opinion as fact, lol.
We would love for you to provide some LeGaL pReCeDeNt for this opinion.
Here’s some from your favorite Blacks Law source!
What is MONEY?
A general, indefinite term for the measure and representative of value; currency; the circulating medium ; cash. “Money” is a generic term, and embraces every description of coin or bank-notes recognized by common consent as a representative of value in effecting exchanges of property or payment of debts. Hopson v. Fountain. 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 140. Money is used in a specific and also in a general and more comprehensive sense. In its specific sense, it means what is coined or stamped by public authority, and has its determinate value fixed by governments. In its more comprehensive and general sense, it means wealth.
In its more comprehensive and general sense, it means wealth.
All material objects, capable of satisfying human wants, desires, or tastes, having a value in exchange, and upon which human labor has been expeuded; i. e.,which have, by such labor, been either reclaimed from nature, extracted or gatheredfrom the earth or sea, manufactured from raw materials, improved, adapted, orcultivated.”The aggregate of all the things, whether material or immaterial, which contribute tocomfort and enjoyment which cannot be obtained without more or less labor, and which are objects of frequent barter and sale, iswhat we usually call ‘wealth.’” Boweu, Pol. Econ. See Branham v. State, 96 Ga. 307, 22S. E. 957.
The aggregate of all things, material or immaterial
haha… yikes, now the definition of “sale” is not the common interpretation? We should call up blacks and FreeDictionary!
You definitely are done.
Now, money equals wealth, which also equals Barter, and by your previous claims also equals sale?
Back to teh PrecEDenT’s We Go! Weird that you have provided none hey…?
“I have 1 soj for wealth”
“wealthing one soj for Vex”
“would you care to wealth me one bag of Rice for my bag of apples”
Since you care about colloquial terms so much even though they have no bearing on contract law.
III. Prohibited Commercial Uses: Exploit, in its entirety or individual components, the Platform for any purpose not expressly authorized by Blizzard, including, without limitation (i) playing the Game(s) at commercial establishments (subject to Section 1.B.v.3.); (ii) gathering in-game currency, items, or resources for sale, AND The aggregate of all things, material or immaterial AND objects of frequent barter outside of the Platform or the Game(s); (iii) performing in-game services including, without limitation, account boosting or power-leveling, in exchange for payment;
This is your position on what the ToS states…? Even though it doesn’t, and you have provided no evidence that this position would hold up in a hearing because you have no LeGal PreCeDenT.
