從law角度黎睇!
商城物品所設定既元寶數量係GAMEONE設定
而玩家係商城到用元寶買野..就 invitation to treat
GAMEONE invitation to treat 左果D商城物品既野比我地!!不可以更改!!
就算係超市...買野都係睇貨架上既價錢牌LA
去到收銀機果到比錢同收銀機有出入都係跟貨架上既價錢牌而比錢!!
Under contract law, "Invitation to treat" is an invitation by one party to one or more other parties to submit an offer. The invitation itself may or may not be regarded as a binding contract, depending on the conditions imposed on the offers so invited. ] AC 207
Precedent cases are:
Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207
The consign we had with GAMEONE not under the protection of contract law, where we are not buying and selling, but is a way to entitle free service with optional add up (and this is depending on the wish of users). This is a meaning that GAMEONE is willing to provide free service and with majority free operation of the whole issue, with this optional add up virtual free service is not a contract law; This is important to know especially, if you are a LLB student on way to be solicitor or barrister.
However, Hong Kong law does protect citizen to have right to buy fairly. This is a consumer right, the consumer right somehow is not protected by law, but as a reference in some occasion (is really depending), is an external factor (such as public pressure, audience will) to compress a company conclusively fulfill the requirement from the complaining customer/user.
Such in this case, we can reflect the incident to Consumer Consult (CC), CC will only measure the case and discuss with GAMEONE, GAMEONE still hold the right to make final decision where Consumer Consult is powerless to force them to do so. If this is the situation, we could only go by civil appear (民事頌訴) not even small tribullo (小額錢Ｘ), this is going to be a very long time and a big fortune, the 官 may even tell you directly that "you are wasting my time and the money of HK citizen to appeal such minor issue"
And, please don't mix up, the case:
Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207
having a different legist and legal system as Hong Kong does, this could be a study reference, but is not appropriate to serve as a legal reference in Hong Kong.
