Originally Posted by
FlyingLasse
Doesnt matter.
If it really comes down to billing adress or location, such a claim WILL NOT STAND. at least not for european customers.
But UA should be wise enough, not to do this.
You seem mighty confident about the sort of claim that lawyers constantly tell new or inexperienced clients tends to be a weak one-- that an adjudicator should rely on an overly-literalistic reading of legal language to effectuate an unjust result that could never have constituted the mutual intent of the parties, using legal rules that were created for a completely different purpose.
I'm not saying this never wins, but if I were to define the difference between the legal views of civil litigators and the rest of the population, I'd fix it right here-- civil litigators view this sort of claim as the second weakest possible claim (with the only weaker one being where the literal language of the statute doesn't even support the claim or a case precedent rejects it), whereas the rest of the population seems to think that what courts and regulators love to do is rule in favor of people based on technicalities despite it being totally out of whack with everyone's intent in the matter.