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.
|
|
