NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8881730" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are two different issues here, I think.One concerns the interpretation of the agreement. Unless there is ambiguity that needs appeal to further evidence to resolve, that would be done on the basis of the text itself. The FAQ is not part of the text of the agreement.The other is whether there is a reliance-based argument that licensees can rely on. In my jurisdiction this is called estoppel - I think the same term is used in US law, and the rough idea is of a contract based on reasonable reliance rather than on a bargain. The argument here would be that rights have arisen that are outside of the terms of the OGL.If I was arguing for WotC, I would be suggesting that a public-facing FAQ is not something that a commercial publisher would reasonably rely on in order to determine the scope and content of their legal rights. As I mentioned upthread (or in one of the other threads?), one of the leading cases in Australia dealing with this issue found that the estoppel arose out of multiple factors including public statements of policy (where these were made by government ministers - the defendant in the law suit, which was a private law claim, was the Australian government) and also particular things said during pre-litigation negotiations. That is more than just a generic, public-facing FAQ.But I don't know how US law treats the issue of reasonableness of reliance. And maybe I'm underestimating the weight that might reasonably be given to WotC's FAQ. In this thread, [USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] in post 195 is more optimistic than my previous paragraph about the merits of a reliance-based argument, and I'm confident that Steel_Wind knows the relevant North American law better than I do.</blockquote>

Verification