Ezekiel wrote:
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:uNadnS-bxPy6xvrUnZ2dnUVZ8rednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ezekiel wrote:
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:HcadnX3iNrUsy_rUnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ezekiel wrote:
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:KqednfwJH5gH1_rUnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ezekiel wrote:
So yes.... MS has every right to sue them to get the consoles back.
The
No they do not. They have no more right than any of the other
creditors to woolies. As woolies is now in administration they should
have to go through the proper channels to make a claim for what they
are owed, according to UK law. This suit is doomed to failure.
lawsuit has absolutely ZERO to do with your bullshit headline of -
"Microsoft Sues Dying Company for Losing Too Much on XBox" Microsoft
is suing a company which accepted some merchandise and is now
refusing to pay for it.
Microsoft is suing a company *in administration, and the company that
is administrating it*. They have no automatic right to see that money
back. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to supply
woolies. They are not above the law.
They want their inventory back and are going through legal channels to
reclaim their inventory. What exactly is wrong with that?
Erm, Woolies is in administration.
Of course, there is no reason that if a buyer is found (or even if the
entirety of woolies is liquidated) that MS won't get their money/stock
back. The point is that this is entirely the wrong thing to do and
typical of MS' bully boy tactics.
Do show *exactly where they are suing Woolworths "for losing too much
on XBox" - where exactly is this the *reason* for the lawsuit. That's
what the headline said so let's see any evidence at all to backup the
headline.
Of course it's BS but keep right on defending the worthless
Schestowtitz shill.
Nice deflect attempt but (a) I am not suggesting anything about xbox
losses, and (b) am not defending anyone.
I am merely pointing out that woolies is in administration and therefore
any attempt to "reclaim their inventory" in this manner is pointless.
The original headline that the Schestowitz liar posted was that MS is
suing them "for Losing Too Much on XBox."
Is this true or not. Is this the reason why MS is suing them - "for
Losing Too Much on XBox."
A simple 'Yes' this headline is correct or 'No' this is a false headline
will suffice. Are they being sued for "losing too much on the Xbox" or
are they being sued to reclaim their inventory. Which is it?
Irrelevant. They have no business suing them at all. Stop trying to
deflect the issue. Your original claim was:
"Microsoft is suing a company which accepted some merchandise and is now
refusing to pay for it."
No - read the title of the thread. It's "Merciless Liar Roy Schestowitz
posts another false headline"
Whether Woolworths is a holding company or an administration or a railroad
isn't the issue. The issue is that the *original* headline was complete and
utter bullshit. They are *NOT* being sued "for losing too much money on the
XBox."
Your wiggling and squirming doesn't change this.
"MS has every right to sue them to get the consoles back."
Present in your post, no?
|
|
