Magna Mundi cancelled

[Ivashanko]

Wouldn't that essentially mean there is no way the other member of the contract can fulfill it? As no matter how good job you did, the other member can always say "we take what you have done and you give us our money back regardless". In my opinion that would make the contract very much one-sided. At least in Finnish law parts of an agreement can be declared void, if applying them would leave the other member in a unreasonably bad situation. This is done despite the pacta sunt servanda principle being the general rule. As the Finnish law is still heavily influenced by Swedish law, so I would expect it to have a similar principle?

You are almost certainly right. And, by the way, nicely put.

[Jaidal]

And where would UV get the cash to publish and sell the game, even if it's only online?
[...]

Desura

[Ashantai]

Perhaps. Largely irrelevant though since I doubt Paradox will let them release it anywhere, especially now.

[Bloodmerchant]

But the engine still belongs to Paradox.

[Homero]

as a whole I can't say I much see your point - if Ubik has been acting in an abnormal

An inconvenient truth: yes, it is a you say,everyone here is allowed to insult Ubik (calling him fool, egomaniac, paranoid, etc, ad nauseam).
Sadly that´s why the "random quotes", explicitly stating this fact, were deleted.

[Mallorie]

An inconvenient truth: yes, it is a you say,everyone here is allowed to insult Ubik (calling him fool, egomaniac, paranoid, etc, ad nauseam).
Sadly that´s why the "random quotes", explicitly stating this fact, were deleted.

But, well, that's not a matter of it suddenly being open season on Ubiks; it's because it's generally considered to be a sincere (albeit potentially erroneous) conclusion born of available evidence in response to his actions. Or, to make use of an analogy, if Tomn_Peng were to suddenly announce his intention to jump from a bridge because he had developed superpowers, I would be allowed to call him insane for believing such a thing (before being roundly mocked by others for missing an obvious joke).

You're asking us to cover our eyes and plug our ears when I hear that a failed developer is suing my prefered provider of entertainment for insisting on standards. Why need I be silent under such circumstances?

Incidentally, you may find it easier to persuade people if you were to put forth an argument explaining why you feel our actions to be rude and inappropriate. This dancing about, hinting that we're all horrible people for engaging in open (albeit occasionally harsh) discussion, wins you few converts. I might also mention that the discussion here has been far, far more polite towards the team in general, and Ubik in particular, than some other places I've seen.

[Jia Xu]

But, well, that's not a matter of it suddenly being open season on Ubiks; it's because it's generally considered to be a sincere (albeit potentially erroneous) conclusion born of available evidence in response to his actions. Or, to make use of an analogy, if Tomn_Peng were to suddenly announce his intention to jump from a bridge because he had developed superpowers, I would be allowed to call him insane for believing such a thing (before being roundly mocked by others for missing an obvious joke). You're asking us to cover our eyes and plug our ears when I hear that a failed developer is suing my prefered provider of entertainment for insisting on standards. Why need I be silent under such circumstances? Incidentally, you may find it easier to persuade people if you were to put forth an argument explaining why you feel our actions to be rude and inappropriate. This dancing about, hinting that we're all horrible people for engaging in open (albeit occasionally harsh) discussion, wins you few converts. I might also mention that the discussion here has been far, far more polite towards the team in general, and Ubik in particular, than some other places I've seen.

Good points. The least persuasive arguments in this topic are the ones playing every victim card in the deck to turn Ubik into some kind of martyr. Paradox has not fed Ubik to the lions for entertainment. Ubik couldn't meet his contractual obligations to provide a functioning game, so the game got cancelled. Ubik responded by suing PI in an act of pure, maliciousness and now we're supposed to treat him like he's being bullied? Victims of bullying don't engage in malicious lawsuits like this one.

[Tomn_Peng]

I'm also not much of a fan of the "We don't know everything, therefore we shouldn't say anything" arguments, either. Though we may not be in possession of ALL the facts of the situation, we're certainly in possession of a great many, and from those facts we can either engage interesting, evidence-based speculation or else draw rational conclusions from the facts that are available.

Just for example, the last page or so of this thread has resulted in an informative discussion that helped to clear up our picture of the likely legal situation, and Ubik's likely position within it. Against that, the only reason I can see for silence is, in effect, to spare Ubik's feelings. Given his actions thus far, I can't say that goal is particularly high on my list on priorities right now, and I can't say it's liable to get much higher. But perhaps those with unconditional trust and faith in Ubik can explain why we should shift that priority higher?

[PdoxNewbie]

I don't think we should be sparing his feelings too much- after all, it is he who has started this legal case in the first place, and if it comes back to bite him, he has no one else to blame but himself.

[Kurblius]

How long do you guys think it'll take before UV files legal proceedings? We'll have a better idea of how things will turn out once that happens. Personally, it sounds to me as though UV can't afford to drag on the issue without resolution for too long. less than 6 months perhaps?

[Ivashanko]

Good points. The least persuasive arguments in this topic are the ones playing every victim card in the deck to turn Ubik into some kind of martyr. Paradox has not fed Ubik to the lions for entertainment. Ubik couldn't meet his contractual obligations to provide a functioning game, so the game got cancelled. Ubik responded by suing PI in an act of pure, maliciousness and now we're supposed to treat him like he's being bullied? Victims of bullying don't engage in malicious lawsuits like this one.

It is probable that Ubik is suing Paradox in order to not pay back the money Paradox sunk into the project. I would not say that is pure maliciousness, but rather malicious pragmatism. It is likely that UV will go under if it is forced to pay Paradox the cash required- and it might be so bad that Ubik is in debt for quite a long time. That makes the stakes much higher for him, and what he is doing is pretty rational if you ask me.

[kal56]

It is probable that Ubik is suing Paradox in order to not pay back the money Paradox sunk into the project. I would not say that is pure maliciousness, but rather malicious pragmatism. It is likely that UV will go under if it is forced to pay Paradox the cash required- and it might be so bad that Ubik is in debt for quite a long time. That makes the stakes much higher for him, and what he is doing is pretty rational if you ask me.

Ubik himself probably wouldn't be in debt. I'm not sure about Europe but in the US a CEO isn't personally accountable for money his company doesn't have.

[Derp]

Attributing any kind of "maliciousness" to Ubik/UV for suing is frankly dumb.
Businesses sue each other all the time for reasons like this.

That being said, I firmly believe that UV is in the wrong in this case (it failed to deliver), but if you want to assign morality to business decisions you better start doing so with all business decisions, even for companies you support... because I'll guarantee you that most of them have done as bad or worse.

[yak]

Attributing any kind of "maliciousness" to Ubik/UV for suing is frankly dumb.
Businesses sue each other all the time for reasons like this.

That being said, I firmly believe that UV is in the wrong in this case (it failed to deliver), but if you want to assign morality to business decisions you better start doing so with all business decisions, even for companies you support... because I'll guarantee you that most of them have done as bad or worse.

Good point.

If Paradox indeed insists on full repayment of their investment i dont think ubik/his company has much other choice than to try and avert this by any means or at least salvage as much as he can.

And dont believe for a minute that this wouldnt include knowingly selling a completely broken game to people, also.

[ywhtptgtfo]

Good point.

If Paradox indeed insists on full repayment of their investment i dont think ubik/his company has much other choice than to try and avert this by any means or at least salvage as much as he can.

And dont believe for a minute that this wouldnt include knowingly selling a completely broken game to people, also.

If that's part of the contract, I find it difficult for the terms to be reversed. :/

By the way, how did Homero get himself banned?

[binTravkin]

You guys have a whole lot of time in your hands.
Why not go play some other game you like and check back when (if) there are news from this case?

[Kung Zog]

You guys have a whole lot of time in your hands.
Why not go play some other game you like and check back when (if) there are news from this case?

Not really, it only takes a minute or two to reply. Discussion also improves the brain.

[Happy_Lonely]

Ubik himself probably wouldn't be in debt. I'm not sure about Europe but in the US a CEO isn't personally accountable for money his company doesn't have.

In general, you are right. However, even a new company such as UV needs money to run. It can get money either from investors or a bank. If it is a bank, personal sureties by the company owner(s) are usually required, as the company itself lacks equity to act as collateral. The Banks are not stupid - they don't borrow out money to a new company just so they can burn it and declare bankruptcy. That would be something an investor does.

So either UV has an investor to pay the costs of litigation, UV has somehow stacked money it got from PI and uses that, or Ubik (or some people close to him such as family members) give personal sureties for a loan.

Putting up a limited liability company is not enough, you have to convince someone to give you money before you can get yourself off the hook.

[myLAAN]

I don't think we should be sparing his feelings too much- after all, it is he who has started this legal case in the first place, and if it comes back to bite him, he has no one else to blame but himself.

I don't think ubik minds any harsh words much, he was always keen on acting like a lightingrod for whatever was hurled towards the team. If it wasn't for the money, this whole situation and the ruckus it generates would suit him great probably

[LordInsane]

In Finnish law there is such a paragraph (OikTL 36 §, Laki varallisuusoikeudellisista oikeustoimista), also called the general mediation paragraph. It states that an article within a contract can be mediated or declared void, if its applying would lead to an unreasonable situation for one of the members of that contract. I think it is not used too often, though.

My whole speculation here is based on an assumption that Swedish law has a similar paragraph, as the Finnish law has traditionally been similar to the Swedish one.

There is. Lag (1915:218) om avtal och andra rättshandlingar på förmögenhetsrättens område 36 §.