"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?
> 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.
|
|
