139
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
139 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38657 readers
202 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I find it hard to believe that it's legal to buy a company, but not it's contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don't want to do.
Capitalism at work baby
They claim they didn't bought the contractual obligations, so to be fair they should cancel all subscription and not just the lifetime subscriptions. But obviously it's just a bullshit claim by some corpo...
If the customers came across in the transaction, so did the contractual obligations. You can't have it both ways.
You can if you have money.
Yet it is.
You can go to a company and ask to buy their office building. Or the name trademark. Or staff. Or customer database. Or website. And you continue this until you've acquired literally everything the company has except the actual company itself - it's called an "asset acquisition" - so you get all the stuff, but because the original company technically still exists it's left with most of the liabilities.
Most, because some liabilities thankfully do transfer.
In this instance:
...how you can claim not to have gotten the contracts, yet be in a position to cancel them sound a bit of a, well, lie.
Probably legal (for the buying company) but customers should sue the original company and get paid out of the money used to buy it.
No you probably sue them both.
Yeah, suing just one or the other will have them deflecting and finger-pointing in court. Suing both forces both of them to actually meet at the same table in front of the judge, instead of one or the other deflecting to some distant entity that isn’t in the courtroom.
Also would have been nice if the buyers hadn't waited years after finding out to announce it, giving the seller plenty of time to shut down the original company. There is nothing to sue now.
This would almost certainly depend on the contracts themselves.
Contracts always have some bullshit like: "We can do whatever the fuck we want. Service not guaranteed. We have the right to refuse service to anyone. Lifetime is defined by the lifetime of the service which is defined by us. Can change at anytime."