Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Goobermunch" data-source="post: 4181429" data-attributes="member: 10516">I don't know how courts in the UK construe contracts, but where I'm from, the general rule of thumb is that a court will construe a contract to acertain and effectuate the intent of the parties by giving full effect to each word of the contract and avoid constructions that are strained or lead to an absurd result.  Moreover, the general rule that a contract is strictly enforced against the drafter in the event of ambiguity has fallen out of favor and is to be used only as a last resort by the court.  Instead, where an ambiguity arises, a court should consult extrinsic evidence.I'm not going to say what a court would do with the d20 STL.  Courts are unpredictable things that do what they will under a veneer of reason and logic.  I will say that WotC has, at the very least, a good faith argument that the power to terminate from Section 6 includes the power to terminate without breach.  Moreover, it's my understanding that the general understanding of the parties (i.e., WotC and the 3pps), has always been that the d20 STL is revocable.Combine the revocability of the license with the broad language of the termination clause and a court definitely has a place to hang its hat.  That said, the 3pps also have an argument against application of the termination clause.  Were I representing them, I'd argue that application of the termination power is conditioned on breach, and that therefore, WotC cannot terminate the license without evidence of breach.  However, all that WotC needs to do to settle the issue is, on June 6, 2008, release version 7 of the d20 STL stating "All rights formerly granted by this license have been terminated."--G</blockquote>

Verification