Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marketman ...This is like if you went to your loacl [sic] store and purchased a tin of beans, but when you opened this you found this was a tin of carrots as this was sold and advertised within the store you purchased this from, they are liable for false advertising... |
Unfortunately your analogy fails on two points.
Firstly, you didn't go to the store and even if you had done you would have found that it wasn't Limewire!
See if this makes it any plainer: let's assume that you bought the film from the Acme Video Store and they posted it to you; again, what is supplied is not what was advertised.
To whom would you complain?
To the mailman or to Acme Video Store?
I am assuming that you answered "Acme Video Store" and in which case you would be correct!
Why? Because you entered into a contract with
Acme for the supply of your chosen film. They then entered into a contract with the mailman to deliver a package (your film) from them to you.
There exists no contract between you and the mailman.
The mailman has satisfied the contract that existed between him and Acme.
The point I am trying to get across is that you have no recourse against the mailman.
Why am I banging on about some hypothetical mailman? Because he fulfills Limewire's role in the example.
Whoever you gave your money to, whatever they are calling themselves, no matter how angry you get, Limewire did not sell that film to you.
Infact Limewire did not sell any films to anyone: LIMEWIRE DO NOT PROVIDE CONTENT ONLY THE MEANS TO MOVE IT.
I apologise if I have laboured the point, but really how stupid can someone with only one head be?