Sorry, but the "car thief" analogy fails on a key aspect: lack of invitation ...
The car thief has tampered with/hotwired the vehicle -- clearly accessing the vehicle in a manner that isn't normally permitted.
A better analogy would be if you put your car up for sale and permitted someone a test drive ... who then drove it cross country and failed to return (all in the course of "standard" use of the equipment). In this case, your only recourse is with the manufacturer, who failed to protect you from misappropriation of an asset that you permitted someone else to operate.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpbp2002" <bjbigplayer@> wrote:
> > If the casino did not intend for such a combination of button pushes to be allowable they should not have put these machines into play or done a better job of quality control. The casino has recourse for their losses but it's against the game manufacturer not the player.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "seedub49" <seedub49@...> wrote:
> I guess I really don't understand this line of thought and I'm the one missing something here. So by this rationale, if someone steals my car, it is my fault for buying a car that can be hotwired or stolen by whatever means, and I should have done better quality control if i did not intend for my car to be stolen. I should try to recoup my losses from the manufacturer of the car for selling me a car that can be stolen, but the thief should not be prosecuted or in any way held accountable for exploiting the weakness.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (12) |
