Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

k2 stole my money

This is a discussion on k2 stole my money within the General Chat forums, part of the Knight Online (ko4life.com) category; i don't play ko for long time i try to come back but after 1 day i made premium i ...
Page: 2


  1. #16
    Senior Member kozyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    314

    Default

    i don't play ko for long time i try to come back but after 1 day i made premium i changed my mind. wasted too much time in ko and still i got no regrets for long time for paying 35$ for one day i have played to get lvl 55 so i took responsibility when i had to but at this time i didn't knew they gonna charge me either for the fact i never saw the option of renew premium.

    i also got profs that i have quit they can check my account mails i have sent and even topic that i have opened here in ko4life for selling (didn't sold at least, just wanted to leave ko in peace).
    i think i got good case get money back. its not just the money its also justice. k2 will stay sucks either if they give money back. but than i will have to find a new arrangement to pay for blizzard <3

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    813

    Default

    The Law -

    It&#39;s not necessarily a conventionally accepted ethical practice- HOWEVER in the United States capitalism generally falls under the more commonly explained statement "Buyer beware". You have the opportunity to investigate and review everything prior to committing to purchase. This game is hosted and sold in the US. This makes it a US company and as such governed by US law. The BEST you could do is hope for sympathy from unregulated and unbiased resources (ie, the Better Business Bureau). I can tell you as an American Consumer who has been screwed and learned this is a part of life, it&#39;s a waste of time and you will get no sympathy. Furthermore, taking the recommendation provided above to "lie" to your CC company and charge back the purchase is fraudulent and 100% illegal. You (potentially) will become a "criminal" in the US subsequently getting you into much more trouble than you need. I don&#39;t believe 70 dollars would be considered an extraditable offense, but your cc company may have some ramifications as they want reciprocal business in the states. Ultimately, you&#39;re going to pay for it.

    The best case scenario; you have learned a valuable lesson about conducting business - read all the information before committing to the purchase - ESPECIALLY the fine print. I highly recommend reading the Agreement for a more comprehensive understanding of how the system works. Also, you should realize from the language, this has been written by an attorney and not some secretary. Unless you&#39;re a bajillionaire who can play the "Who can bankroll a lawsuit longer" and sue for the pure entertainment of it - you will lose this fight.

    In any event this type of practice, long ago considered poor form is relatively common today in this country and therefore perfectly legal.

    Summarily sir, you&#39;ve been K2&#39;d.

    As a post-script, if my assumption is correct and you are in fact NOT American and your native tongue is not English, you do have slightly greater than a snowballs chance. Americans are ridiculous about common sense. Simply contact a lawyer and explain the website is not offered in your native language therefor not allowing you a complete opportunity to fully understand the terms of the Agreement. As a result you have suffered extreme duress from this revolting practice which does not occur in your country. (be able to prove that is true) You would like to sue the retailer for 100% of the purchase price and damages. If you have the capital (I would guess in the neighborhood of $100k-200k USD) you could set precedent in the supreme courts. Chances are you might find a lawyer hungry enough to "see what happens". It&#39;s marginal and you will likely settle out of court for the $70usd and 1/2 of total combined damages, maybe they&#39;ll throw in 5 grand to shut you up (yours + k2&#39;s, essentially you both cover your own costs, cause they&#39;ll counter sue for wrongful prosecution, maybe some manner of breach of agreement because your attorney will have you charge back your payments and force the issue with your bank) It&#39;s remotely possible, but frankly you would be better to let it go and be more careful from this point forward.

    It&#39;s like the baby who touches the hot stove, it only takes 1 time to learn.. "Shit, that hurt. I&#39;ll never do THAT again"

    Hope this helps answer your question

    ~Cleatus

    EDIT: If you ARE American, you&#39;re without hope of resolution. Lesson learned, move on. (The thought here would be you&#39;re a minor and therefore could not enter into agreement, but if you have a CC you are over 18 and could enter into contract. If you used your parents CC they should not allow you to use their CC unless they understand what they are buying.) Anyway you look at it.. sorry charlie.[/b]
    Can I call this person an idiot or would that be considered a flame?

    Anyways, you are wrong.

    A service provided in exchange for money (definition of a transaction) requires a contract. A contract in the United States to be considered valid requires mutual assent among other things. The manner in which parties usually show mutual assent is by offer and acceptance. The person making the offer is the offeror, and the person to whom the offer is made is the offeree. An offer does not require a particular form to be considered valid. Meaning, it can be written or it can be oral. However, in order for an offer to be valid it has to be 1) communicated to the offeree, 2) manifest an intent to enter into a contract, and 3) be sufficiently definite and certain. The offer was not communicated to Zywar. When he bought the premium, he had no idea that there was recurring billing. If it was not communicated to him, it does not meet the requirement of an offer. Therefore, the contract is voidable. Call your credit card company and tell them that you had no idea that there was recurring billing. You will get your money back.

    Cleatus, you should buy this book http://www.amazon.com/Smith-Robersons-Busi...562&sr=11-1. I have it. It is 170 dollars, but it is well worth it. Atleast, you won&#39;t look like an idiot.

  3. #18
    Cleatus
    Guest

    Default

    Can I call this person an idiot or would that be considered a flame?

    Anyways, you are wrong.

    A service provided in exchange for money (definition of a transaction) requires a contract. A contract in the United States to be considered valid requires mutual assent among other things. The manner in which parties usually show mutual assent is by offer and acceptance. The person making the offer is the offeror, and the person to whom the offer is made is the offeree. An offer does not require a particular form to be considered valid. Meaning, it can be written or it can be oral. However, in order for an offer to be valid it has to be 1) communicated to the offeree, 2) manifest an intent to enter into a contract, and 3) be sufficiently definite and certain. The offer was not communicated to Zywar. When he bought the premium, he had no idea that there was recurring billing. If it was not communicated to him, it does not meet the requirement of an offer. Therefore, the contract is voidable. Call your credit card company and tell them that you had no idea that there was recurring billing. You will get your money back.

    Cleatus, you should buy this book http://www.amazon.com/Smith-Robersons-Busi...562&sr=11-1. I have it. It is 170 dollars, but it is well worth it. Atleast, you won&#39;t look like an idiot.[/b]
    Actually asshat he did have mutual assent. When you sign up for an account you agreed to the EULA, Terms and conditions, these conditions are subject to change without notice - come on. You even read the book!

    And to be more correct, there are 5 parts to a contract, but you knew that because you have 1 book.

    You&#39;re giving the guy a bad answer. The question I answered was, is it legal. The answer is yes. Is it right? No.. it&#39;s pretty shady - that wasn&#39;t the question. Furthermore, telling the guy to "believe you&#39;ve not been informed" or otherwise "Just lie about it" is fraud. Premium service doesn&#39;t matter in the grand scheme of life, however that sets a whole new precedent.

    Zywar, you&#39;d get away with the charging back the money - but you&#39;ll have learned nothing about the pitfalls of commerce. When it really matters, the stakes are higher, and you&#39;re dealing with a company that hasn&#39;t grown too large to control these types of issues - doing something like that could find you in some hot water. A strong corporation would force the issue, leaving you with a whole new headache to contend with. You&#39;re welcome to trust in fools like Mr. 1 book library up there, but from putting theory into practice, their advice is wrong will get you in trouble some day. Instead, from now on read everything in its entirety or end up paying for it in the end.




  4. #19
    Senior Member Jayrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Actually asshat he did have mutual assent. When you sign up for an account you agreed to the EULA, Terms and conditions, these conditions are subject to change without notice - come on. You even read the book!

    And to be more correct, there are 5 parts to a contract, but you knew that because you have 1 book.

    You&#39;re giving the guy a bad answer. The question I answered was, is it legal. The answer is yes. Is it right? No.. it&#39;s pretty shady - that wasn&#39;t the question. Furthermore, telling the guy to "believe you&#39;ve not been informed" or otherwise "Just lie about it" is fraud. Premium service doesn&#39;t matter in the grand scheme of life, however that sets a whole new precedent.

    Zywar, you&#39;d get away with the charging back the money - but you&#39;ll have learned nothing about the pitfalls of commerce. When it really matters, the stakes are higher, and you&#39;re dealing with a company that hasn&#39;t grown too large to control these types of issues - doing something like that could find you in some hot water. A strong corporation would force the issue, leaving you with a whole new headache to contend with. You&#39;re welcome to trust in fools like Mr. 1 book library up there, but from putting theory into practice, their advice is wrong will get you in trouble some day. Instead, from now on read everything in its entirety or end up paying for it in the end.[/b]

    u write like a lawyer but if u were one ur wonderful logic would notice the original poster is not from the usa... he cannot be sued by k2 also if k2 did want to pursue suing someone u think they would make a lawsuit over 70$ no they would not. i would love k2 to bring a stupid frivolous lawsuit against anyone in another country for a few months of premium chargedback. its not worth their time or effort the only thing they would do is ban ur account and move on. it would cost them more in lawyer fees and their own valuable time then they could recoup from court. i think if you are a lawyer u are the ambulance chasing asshole that america is full of and i wish u would jump in the ocean dummy :P

  5. #20
    Dro
    Dro is offline
    As hot sauce on your taco Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Your place or mine? *wink*
    Posts
    2,916

    Default

    Replace "Bitch" for "K2" and "Fish" for "Money" and you could be the little kid

    h34r:

  6. #21
    Psy
    Psy is offline
    Senior Member Psy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rhodesia
    Posts
    1,515

    Default

    You could go further and get the money you spent in the first place back.

    Oh, and:


  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    813

    Default

    Actually asshat he did have mutual assent. When you sign up for an account you agreed to the EULA, Terms and conditions, these conditions are subject to change without notice - come on. You even read the book!

    And to be more correct, there are 5 parts to a contract, but you knew that because you have 1 book.

    You&#39;re giving the guy a bad answer. The question I answered was, is it legal. The answer is yes. Is it right? No.. it&#39;s pretty shady - that wasn&#39;t the question. Furthermore, telling the guy to "believe you&#39;ve not been informed" or otherwise "Just lie about it" is fraud. Premium service doesn&#39;t matter in the grand scheme of life, however that sets a whole new precedent.

    Zywar, you&#39;d get away with the charging back the money - but you&#39;ll have learned nothing about the pitfalls of commerce. When it really matters, the stakes are higher, and you&#39;re dealing with a company that hasn&#39;t grown too large to control these types of issues - doing something like that could find you in some hot water. A strong corporation would force the issue, leaving you with a whole new headache to contend with. You&#39;re welcome to trust in fools like Mr. 1 book library up there, but from putting theory into practice, their advice is wrong will get you in trouble some day. Instead, from now on read everything in its entirety or end up paying for it in the end.[/b]
    You are an idiot.

    Since you are talking about contract content (mind you, it has nothing to do with mutual assent) I will educate your retarded ass. One of the criteria for the make-up of a contract is that it has to be reasonably acceptable. If I put a clause "contract is subjected to change without notice", I can&#39;t add or act upon a stipulation that isn&#39;t reasonable. For example, I can&#39;t add something like "I own you nigga, bend the fuck over, and let Bubba penetrate your ass for 2 dollars." Similarly, I can&#39;t act upon a stipulation that isn&#39;t reasonable. A stipulation that is reasonable follow almost the same guidelines as an offer. One of the criteria is that it has to be communicated and it has to be accepted.

    The offer of "recurring billing" was not communicated to Zywar [because he did not know about it], therefore there is no mutual assent. It is the same logic as why companies can&#39;t charge your credit card without your consent. It has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "pitfalls of commerce". Kindly, shut the fuck up. You don&#39;t know jack about business law.

  8. #23
    Senior Member kozyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Replace "Bitch" for "K2" and "Fish" for "Money" and you could be the little kid

    h34r:[/b]
    but i am not black i am white

    between is that really can help if i tell k2 that english is not my first language? that also i could have been mistake or not understanding?


  9. #24
    mdeac48
    Guest

    Default

    Consent, assent, and all that other legal stuff aside, any chance you have of getting the money back depends on the credit card company that issued you the card. They may decide to to give you the money back and reverse the charges K2 made to your card or they may not. Either way its your only chance, but if you do get the charges reversed K2 will probably block the account, though if you don&#39;t want to play again, no big loss.

    K2 won&#39;t give you the money back, the card company is your only hope, and thats not even a sure bet.

  10. #25
    Senior Member kozyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    314

    Default

    i got nothing on that account only some shit from cranc and lvl 55 or something XD

  11. #26
    Cleatus
    Guest

    Default

    You are an idiot.

    Since you are talking about contract content (mind you, it has nothing to do with mutual assent) I will educate your retarded ass. One of the criteria for the make-up of a contract is that it has to be reasonably acceptable. If I put a clause "contract is subjected to change without notice", I can&#39;t add or act upon a stipulation that isn&#39;t reasonable. For example, I can&#39;t add something like "I own you nigga, bend the fuck over, and let Bubba penetrate your ass for 2 dollars." Similarly, I can&#39;t act upon a stipulation that isn&#39;t reasonable. A stipulation that is reasonable follow almost the same guidelines as an offer. One of the criteria is that it has to be communicated and it has to be accepted.

    The offer of "recurring billing" was not communicated to Zywar [because he did not know about it], therefore there is no mutual assent. It is the same logic as why companies can&#39;t charge your credit card without your consent. It has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "pitfalls of commerce". Kindly, shut the fuck up. You don&#39;t know jack about business law.[/b]
    There is really no need for name calling.

    There is an old saying that goes something like "It is better to have said nothing and be thought a fool, than to have spoken and let it be known." I know how you&#39;ll react due to the fact you&#39;re quite immature, but the truth of the matter in this case is that the previous statement is addressed toward you.

    This is the second time you&#39;ve jumped on my post like you had something to prove. This is the second time you&#39;ve been wrong. The next time you go skimming through google in an effort to flame someone I highly recommend you read through the entire context of your source.

    When a definition is provided including the text "Reasonably certain" or "reasonably acceptable", the intent suggests that the terms be definite - or that - the parties involved and members of the court can clearly ascertain the terms of the agreement. Essentially, to utilize your model "Bubba will give stuff to you" is not reasonably agreeable "Bubba will deliver 1 gold bar in exchange for 3 widgets you will provide to Bubba" is reasonably certain. In the first sentence, it is not reasonable to determine what bubba will provide you with, where as in the second it is quite clear. The second validates the offer and allows the parties to enter into Agreement.

    Now, to be more correct - terms of an agreement must be LAWFUL and MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. You would have been correct on that one, but that&#39;s not what you said, in either case it would be grabbing at straws to suggest this is an uncouth practice.

    Addressing the next comment, the one where you slobber all over yourself and forget yet again, the context of the situation therefore confirming your status as a common dullard:

    The offer of "recurring billing" was not communicated to Zywar [because he did not know about it], therefore there is no mutual assent. It is the same logic as why companies can&#39;t charge your credit card without your consent. It has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "pitfalls of commerce".[/b]
    Let&#39;s pretend Zywar opened his account over a year ago. "By clicking submit you agree to the terms and conditions and the EULA" type notice on the KOL website. The EULA cleverly refers back to about every legal document the company has available. I am sorry I don&#39;t care enough to look back but if you challenge me I will to further prove your intellectual laziness; one of these documents ( I know because I saw it the other night before I wrote it.. hint hint ) clearly states these terms are subject to change without notice. When Zywar accepted the original terms, he accepted the responsibility to stay informed of T&C changes. ((By the way, and pardon the stream of consciousness, this does in fact happen all the time. The difference between your model of the bank and the company in question- K2, is that banks will send you a little pamphlet in the mail to read. I assume this difference is due to the fact the bank&#39;s business is not 100% web driven like that of K2 Networks. It is your responsibility to read through the contract living service agreements, not the service providers to spoon feed you)) In the event that Zywar&#39;s account was opened prior to the introduction of re-occurring payment options, he was notified to check for updates So last month when he purchased the goods or services from K2, he did agree to these terms and had the opportunity to be informed. When you purchase something, you automatically agree to the conditions of the sale, without prejudice. AHA!!! Now, that&#39;s a completely DIFFERENT topic all together. I won&#39;t even attempt to speak on this.. I know you won&#39;t get it. Quick, go to google.. type in "without prejudice", read 3 lines and come back claiming to have a clue!

    In summary, I am still correct and you have once again proven to be just itching to win an e-fight. You will never "win" anything so long as you act like such a fool. Try having a conversation instead of being a cheese about it. I rarely post anything anymore, and when I do, I&#39;m only trying to be helpful. When someone says "hey I&#39;ve got a problem" and the rest of you go on about "you retard, stupid mofo dumbass" you&#39;ve blown it. I&#39;m trying to help and provide a little more substance than just "Fuck K2" With that said, I&#39;m certainly not perfect and have been wrong a time or two. I would love to learn something new if you&#39;ve got something to teach me... but with your futile attempts to be insulting you&#39;ve only portrayed yourself as a person who&#39;s argument is not worthy of consideration. If I make an incorrect statement when trying to be helpful, provide a clarification - I&#39;ll admit if I&#39;m not correct. At the end of the day, in your haste to be "cool" you&#39;ve failed at proving my information inaccurate. You should really try a different approach. You might find you could actually have a valid statement if you weren&#39;t in such a hurry to be right.

    I&#39;ll say nothing further on the topic. Say what you want, I have nothing to prove to one such as yourself. I&#39;ll look forward to your convulsions of idiocy the next time I try to offer up some food for thought.

    Love,

    Cleatus

  12. #27
    Senior Member orko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lima - Peru
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Cleatus is right, he seems like an ass, but he is right. When you go buy something like a car, you just dont read the contract, you just sing and go with your new car. But if then you realize that your contract says something like 3 months warranty or sum like that, its your own fault for not reading the contract.

    And yes, K2 should just put it off on new premium buyers, but you seem to be forgotting sumting: ITS FREAKING K2! money first, money later and players never. They wont do it, the spect you to not deactivate the feature, even if its that you didnt knew, forgot to, etc. Also they should put a big WARN when creating an account, saying that they will charge you monthly unless disabling the option.

    This is more a problem about ethics than a problem about legaly. And K2 has no ethics whatsoeva.

  13. #28
    sirkill
    Guest

    Default

    Cleatus is right, he seems like an ass, but he is right. When you go buy something like a car, you just dont read the contract, you just sing and go with your new car. But if then you realize that your contract says something like 3 months warranty or sum like that, its your own fault for not reading the contract.

    This is more a problem about ethics than a problem about legaly. And K2 has no ethics whatsoeva.[/b]
    i believe cleatus is right also i would say the similar stuff

    off topic how does he seem like an ass some noob flamed him by calling him a idiot and all that shit so whoever started that name calling bullshit is the only ass here, he simply tries to help some1 out with a problem and gets flamed by some immature person that was completly unnessacary

    EDIT:
    I didn&#39;t read any of it because I know it is going to be stupid. I just wanted you to know that.[/b]
    and stupid shit posted like that is completly unessacary and just uselesss flameing

  14. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    813

    Default

    There is really no need for name calling.

    There is an old saying that goes something like "It is better to have said nothing and be thought a fool, than to have spoken and let it be known." I know how you&#39;ll react due to the fact you&#39;re quite immature, but the truth of the matter in this case is that the previous statement is addressed toward you.

    This is the second time you&#39;ve jumped on my post like you had something to prove. This is the second time you&#39;ve been wrong. The next time you go skimming through google in an effort to flame someone I highly recommend you read through the entire context of your source.

    When a definition is provided including the text "Reasonably certain" or "reasonably acceptable", the intent suggests that the terms be definite - or that - the parties involved and members of the court can clearly ascertain the terms of the agreement. Essentially, to utilize your model "Bubba will give stuff to you" is not reasonably agreeable "Bubba will deliver 1 gold bar in exchange for 3 widgets you will provide to Bubba" is reasonably certain. In the first sentence, it is not reasonable to determine what bubba will provide you with, where as in the second it is quite clear. The second validates the offer and allows the parties to enter into Agreement.

    Now, to be more correct - terms of an agreement must be LAWFUL and MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. You would have been correct on that one, but that&#39;s not what you said, in either case it would be grabbing at straws to suggest this is an uncouth practice.

    Addressing the next comment, the one where you slobber all over yourself and forget yet again, the context of the situation therefore confirming your status as a common dullard:
    Let&#39;s pretend Zywar opened his account over a year ago. "By clicking submit you agree to the terms and conditions and the EULA" type notice on the KOL website. The EULA cleverly refers back to about every legal document the company has available. I am sorry I don&#39;t care enough to look back but if you challenge me I will to further prove your intellectual laziness; one of these documents ( I know because I saw it the other night before I wrote it.. hint hint ) clearly states these terms are subject to change without notice. When Zywar accepted the original terms, he accepted the responsibility to stay informed of T&C changes. ((By the way, and pardon the stream of consciousness, this does in fact happen all the time. The difference between your model of the bank and the company in question- K2, is that banks will send you a little pamphlet in the mail to read. I assume this difference is due to the fact the bank&#39;s business is not 100% web driven like that of K2 Networks. It is your responsibility to read through the contract living service agreements, not the service providers to spoon feed you)) In the event that Zywar&#39;s account was opened prior to the introduction of re-occurring payment options, he was notified to check for updates So last month when he purchased the goods or services from K2, he did agree to these terms and had the opportunity to be informed. When you purchase something, you automatically agree to the conditions of the sale, without prejudice. AHA!!! Now, that&#39;s a completely DIFFERENT topic all together. I won&#39;t even attempt to speak on this.. I know you won&#39;t get it. Quick, go to google.. type in "without prejudice", read 3 lines and come back claiming to have a clue!

    In summary, I am still correct and you have once again proven to be just itching to win an e-fight. You will never "win" anything so long as you act like such a fool. Try having a conversation instead of being a cheese about it. I rarely post anything anymore, and when I do, I&#39;m only trying to be helpful. When someone says "hey I&#39;ve got a problem" and the rest of you go on about "you retard, stupid mofo dumbass" you&#39;ve blown it. I&#39;m trying to help and provide a little more substance than just "Fuck K2" With that said, I&#39;m certainly not perfect and have been wrong a time or two. I would love to learn something new if you&#39;ve got something to teach me... but with your futile attempts to be insulting you&#39;ve only portrayed yourself as a person who&#39;s argument is not worthy of consideration. If I make an incorrect statement when trying to be helpful, provide a clarification - I&#39;ll admit if I&#39;m not correct. At the end of the day, in your haste to be "cool" you&#39;ve failed at proving my information inaccurate. You should really try a different approach. You might find you could actually have a valid statement if you weren&#39;t in such a hurry to be right.

    I&#39;ll say nothing further on the topic. Say what you want, I have nothing to prove to one such as yourself. I&#39;ll look forward to your convulsions of idiocy the next time I try to offer up some food for thought.

    Love,

    Cleatus[/b]
    I didn&#39;t read any of it because I know it is going to be stupid. I just wanted you to know that.

  15. #30
    Hey cutie Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,586

    Default

    WOW SO MUCH TO READ!! MY MIND HURTS!!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •