>>715903047
>Agree to the terms imposed on you
That's the thing, they aren't imposed on you. You have a choice, you're not a
You know what I'm going to stop writing that sentence and just leave it unfinished because it's kind of obvious that you are.
> I didn't quote the bit about misrepresentation
And you'll notice that I don't care, the I'm trying to make is that there's no avenue here for you to call it unconscionable. And no, that's not deflecting if it's on topic and related to the argument, especially if I answered the rest of the argument.
>and that's a problem.
No, no it's not. Like I said there's no bargaining on either side, they can't demand more of you and vice versa and as such your bargaining abilities are equal.
Your "meeting of the minds', not that you used that phrase correctly in this context, doesn't need to happen because both of you have an understanding of the contract you're getting into.
Of course, that means if you lied that's all on you.
>Why would industry standard pricing have anything to do with whether one side is benefitted
Because there's benefit to the company and harm to you which is why it was used as an example.
Also revoking the product for something you did, isn't harmful to you and that's the only reason you can have your licence revoked, abuse.
DRM wouldn't fall under this either since not only is your licence not getting revoked when a game shuts down there's no misunderstanding about that for it to be deemed harmful.
>>715904205
