Slashdot Mirror
UK Court Finds Company Liable For Software Defects
normsky writes "A software company's stipulation that it couldn't be held accountable for the poor performance of its software was unfair and could not be enforced, the High Court has said. 'Pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a term is to be implied into the contract that Entirety would be fit for the purpose for which it was bought, namely that the system would increase revenue and occupancy levels and would allow quicker check-in and check-out, including accurately processing groups and making changes to group reservations while preserving the accuracy of the system. I am satisfied that Entirety was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold,' his Honor Judge Toulmin wrote."
Great news - and am happy this is being done. Maybe if this is held as a precedent, more software will be written sensibly and with fewer stupid bugs and features.
I think it is unforgivable that software companies can provide us any software they want (esp. in enterprise software) and get off without any problems. All this is due to very little attention paid to during the SDLC to thinking of problems and use cases and testing.
Yay good for UK - and hope developers in US also get their feet held to the fire soon!
Mr. Ballmer woke up in a sweat in the middle of the night, not knowing exactly why...
Not really. If you're doing something for free, many laws don't come into play. For example, this is about the "Sales of Goods Act". If you're not selling, you don't have to worry.
Accountability for software sold is a good thing. Because right now, there is none.
I imagine you'd only be liable if you actually sell your product to someone, for money, promising them that it'll do something for them. If you just whacked a GPL programme on a website with a label "here is my programme, may or may not work, YMMV", I doubt you could be held accountable for what anyone does with it.
The crux of the court case, if I read it rightly, is that in the UK you aren't allowed to promise your product can do things that you know it can't do and then sell it to someone on that basis. That's standard- what the court case tested is whether putting "(but it probably can't)" in the small print is enough to get you around that. Turns out its not.
That's a good thing.
What part of the word "sale" do you not understand?
How we know is more important than what we know.
This case isn't really atypical of the UK and the EU. Being an American ex-pat who works and lives in the UK, I am always amazed to see how many US companies don't understand the implied warranty and fitness for purpose concepts in UK and EU law. The terms of service of a lot of software don't mean anything, it truly is about if the seller and the consumer are fair and equitable with each other and it is very hard for the seller to be able to constrain the rights of the consumer. Take for example BSkyB for EDS where the contract cap was broken because EDS was deceitful in the sales process about the timelines it would take to implement a solution.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
And don't go pulling the "put some pseudo-legalese magic incantation in my code saying its not fit for even the reasonably-implied purpose and all the trouble will magically go away" card because that won't work in the exact high-liability suits(i.e. someone dies, the stock market crashes) it intended to defend the developer against, in the real world.
Just because you don't want it applied isn't enough. The "Sale of Goods" act doesn't cover free things. "Fit for purpose" requires a stated purpose. And this wasn't about bugs, it was about software that didn't come close to doing what the salesmen asserted it did. It wasn't just a big, but it was a piece of software that didn't really work.
This is a great ruling for the people. Someone lies to sell shit that doesn't work, and they get sued. "It's a bug" isn't a defense of fraud. That's all this means, and your "I refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with me using arguments I don't have answers for" comments can't change the reality. This doesn't affect OSS, and it doesn't affect people that ship products that actually work (even if they have bugs). The software in question didn't do what it was sold to do, and so they should be sued and should lose. *Everyone* should like this decision except people who engage in fraud.
Learn to love Alaska
In America, the buyer must beware: there's this weird idea that it's OK to con someone, because they should somehow know that the person they're buying from isn't trustworthy, essentially throwing all "perfectly informed and rational consumer" theories out of the water. Western European countries tend to have the different opinion that you don't get to fool someone any time (unless you're a civil servant or banker). Sales of most goods are very much not final - for example, the Distance Selling Regulations stipulate a trial period for many goods bought online. So:
1. Do you feel your software is of good quality?
If YES, go to 2.
If NO, give away or do not distribute.
2. Are you prepared to fix any serious problems with your software found by your customers in the year after you've sold it?
If YES, go to 3.
If NO, give away or do not distribute.
3. Do you want to make money from others on the basis of honest trade?
If YES, go to 4.
If NO, give away or do not distribute.
4. Are you prepared to accept that for a consumer to be properly informed about a complex product, he must have a trial period?
If YES, go to 5.
If NO, give away or do not distribute.
5. Congratulations, you're not a shyster and are the sort of businessman an economy needs.
What laws not contingent on a sale having occurred? Negligence and other torts? Not likely: there is no case law suggesting that, and it is a completely different situation so this case has no bearing on it.
What happened here was:
1) There was a sale of goods, and therefore an implied contract term that the goods were fit for purpose.
2) The exclusion clause relied on the customer having been supplied with documentation before purchase that they never received.
3) As a result of 2), the customer relied on the suppliers descriptions of what the software could do.
In the case of hobbyist software
1) there is no sale of goods and no contract (an open source license is not a contract)
2) There are no conditions on disclaimers of liability
3) There is no salesman making unrealistic promises to the customer.
Interestingly, the sale of goods act would cover open source software - even if the price was zero.
I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see why. From the Sale of Goods Act 1979, 2(1):
A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.
I doubt £0 would constitute "consideration" in this context.
As far as I can see, the most significant consequences of this ruling are that:
This is particularly interesting because if EULAs do have any legal standing at all here, then they are probably a contract of adhesion based on technicalities about copyright.
I imagine some lawyers are running around looking nervous at quite a few big software companies this morning. All those DRM systems, for example, just became a bit of a liability: if I install a game and it simply doesn't work, then all those arguments about not returning opened products for a refund just became untenable. (Take note, Ubisoft and games shops.) And if you play silly wotsits on someone's computer to try to install your software's copy protection system and you get it wrong and damage their system, $DEITY help you, because it looks like the courts aren't going to. (Take note Sony, Adobe, et al.)
Of course, we'd have to see the complete context before reading too much into this case, because it sounds like the sale was made following significant contact between the parties and specific claims by the sellers, which might or might not still be the case with typical off-the-shelf or preinstalled software.
... MS ... contract ... accountability on both sides.
Congrats. You've made my day. That has to be one of the funniest sentences I've read here on Slashdot.
Tell me, when was the last time you read a EULA for a Microsoft product?
Imagine if a car or a washing machine came with an agreement like that
I had a hybrid version: an automated car wash at a petrol station did serious damage to my car after it collided with it.
The immediate reaction from the staff on site was to deny everything, point at some weasel words on a sign full of disclaimers, and claim that my car wasn't suitable for their machine (even though they could see it when they sold me the token to put in the machine, and it had been through the same machine without incident on several previous occasions).
However, when it reached their central "customer care" people at head office, they immediately arranged to pay out a substantial sum of money to cover the cost of repairs on a reasonable basis (asked me to provide two quotes from reputable local repair shops).
I later discovered that there had previously been at least one similar case that had gone to court, where the car wash operators pretty much got torn a new one. I imagine the "customer care" people were aware of this, or at least their legal team was.
So much for "good enough" software
On the contrary, it seems this ruling says precisely that software must be good enough. Unless there's something in the actual ruling that is completely missing from TFA, this doesn't require all sold software to be perfect or bug-free, just that it be fit for purpose and of merchantable quality.
That probably means that the more you pay for software and the more the advertising promises, the better the quality and functionality would need to be. A cute graphics demo that cost £1 on an app store for your mobile phone would not be expected to do the same things and with the same reliability as medical device control software you sold to a hospital at £100,000 per unit.