Question on: City of Heroes Going Rogue: Complete Collection Item Pack

Heck, I forgot to mention that all the pre-orders got to start playing GR a day early too! I had to wait a whole day before I could even start!

Quote:

Originally Posted by American_Angel You people are like sheep sometimes.

"And I think you should get a life so that you can stop harrassing people for such petty reasons. Just a thought."
(Reference)

I guess it doesn't really matter. Eventually GR will be free anyway, just like CoV was...

I must say that at this point it does seem as if buying the upgrade is a lesser deal than buying the Complete Collection. You're basically getting a month of play for $10 instead of $15. The option of getting to try out Dual Pistols and Demon Summoning early is no longer a factor.

I'm guessing that eventually they will drop it to $19.99, like the existing standalone codes for City of Heroes and City of Villains. I'm not waiting on that, though.

Okay, first things first.

This isn't a bait and switch. That doesn't matter, because what you mean isn't bait and switch.

A bait and switch is a very specific act in consumer law.

A product is advertised at a particularly desirable price, with no caveats as to limited quantities. A consumer sees the advertisement, and chooses to travel to the store, or in recent times, visit the online store, with intent to purchase the item at the desirable price. On attempting to purchase the item, however, they are informed by the salesman that they have sold out of that particular product. The salesman, being a good salesman, then asks if, perhaps, you'd instead like to purchase this comparable product at a less desirable price, or a comparably-priced item of lower quality.

This is still legal.

It could be, though, that the manager of this store decided to deliberately have only a very small number of items in his inventory of the sale product. It varies by jurisdiction, but for the most part, they must have significantly fewer items that a reasonable business would expect to sell in the circumstances. They must also have failed to make known, either in that advertisement or in circumstances of equal notoriety, that there was a limited quantity of the item avaliable. It is usually not necessary to demonstrate that the business deliberately intended to lure customers in using the sale.

That is a bait and switch. As you can see, it doesn't actually apply.

What you want to accuse NCsoft of is a misrepresentation.

A misrepresentation generally occurs, excepting unusual jurisdiction, when a party to a contract misrepresents the value, quality, nature, or content of the consideration they are providing for the other. This misrepresentation must be a statement of fact, in that it is of an existing and objectively-ascertainable object or state of affairs. The statement must be false, or in some cases made with unreasonable and wilful ignorance of the true state of affairs. This statement must have induced the claimant into entering the contract, insofar as they would never have entered the contract if it had not been made them. The statement must, finally, be material to the contract.

So to accuse NCsoft of a misrepresentation we must establish several things.

Firstly, that NCsoft included in its contract with you that in exchange for the consideration of your dollars, it would provide you with such consideration as includes access to certain electronic items. This is not true. The page in question, which we can agree constitutes an offer, purports to sell you a serial code to be applied to your account, and access to the Going Rogue expansion. This offers 'new costume pieces' without ever beign specific as to what they are. Nowhere in the offer, the advertising material, the forum information or the website information, is there information from a NCsoft representative stating or implying that these specific constume items are a component thereof. In fact, in the only places where information on the exacting contents is provided by an NCsoft representative, it is explicitly and clearly stated that this standing offer does NOT include the two costume sets. Without a representation, there cannot be a misrepresentation. Let's keep going anyway, because I can pretend this is studying.

The statement must be factual. Since the statement does not exist, there is no way to determine whether or not it is one of fact. If it did, it would be one of fact.

The statement must be false. Since the statement does not exist, there is no way to determine its falsity. In general, the courts believe that a statement cannot be false until it exists, so no luck there.

The statement must have induced you into the contract. Well, that one's easy to prove. Sadly, without a statement, there cannot be inducement. If it did exist this would be easy for you.

And, finally, the statement must be material to the contract. This one is not true, without a statement to begin with. If such a statement existed, it would be a point of contention as to whether this costume item was actually material to the contract. Perhaps you could prove it, but perhaps not.

On the basis that your alleged misrepresentation comprehensively fails all of the four tests needed to establish a misrepresentation by dint of not existing, I don't think you have a very strong case.

Uberschveinen, how dare you cloud the issue with facts! That man is entitled!!!