"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
Alternatively, I'm not sure I can conceptualize the legal state of declining to fulfill a requirement for entry, and then... being faced with the consequence of... not being allowed entry somehow being the fault of the person setting the requirements.
Not really.
"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
That's sort of how contracts work in the first place. But you're also right about the ban.
Alt tab right click close?
Alternatively, I'm not sure I can conceptualize the legal state of declining to fulfill a requirement for entry, and then... being faced with the consequence of... not being allowed entry somehow being the fault of the person setting the requirements.
What's the tort violation otherwise?