Again, not a contract it's a "Terms of Use' page. It also says in Section 3: bullet one "don't break the law." That's some awesome advice there!
Same thing.
Contract is essentially a promise you make that will be law enforced and in private law, this usually happens via ToS - an agreement between 2 parties how service will be used. Contract does not even need to be formaly signed.
Think of public transportation. Whenever you enter specfic area or use public transport vehicle, you are agreeing with ToS and any ToS breach can be law enforced.
Phaserlight pointed out, there is more into how law defines a contract than you imply or you think.
Kickstarter's Terms of Use isn't law. By taking no responsibility, Kickstarter doesn't somehow create law. Again, no contract involved in patronage (aka crowdfunding).
KS Terms of Use are irrelevant, this is distraction that is leading us down the wrong path.
KS pledging does fulfill all the requirements of a contract.
A 'pledge' certainly does not fulfill the requirements of a contract. The cases prosecuted do not go after the projects due to contract violation. They go after them for outright fraud and theft including unfair and unlawful commerce.
What connection are you making here? If someone gets prosecuted for murder does that mean they have never been party to a contract as well??
Just talking facts. Kickstarter projects aren't prosecuted for contract violation because patronage by its nature it's a contract.
Kickstarter's 'Terms of Use' doesn't somehow magically make all patronage contracts.
No you are not. Terms of Use are irrelevant. A KS pledge still fulfils all the requirements of a contract; a case would need to be brought by one of the parties to the contract. You do not understand contract law and you are wasting time with misinformation.
Again, no! Read the cases actually prosecuted. Consumer protection due to unfair business practices. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation.
Yes, because that was the specific law that could be prosecuted. That does not mean a contract does not exist. I repeat: You do not understand what you are talking about.
You have a neat opinion, but the actual cases were not revolved around contracts. They were prosecuted due to a specific law being violated.
Again, they violated law; specifically consumer protection law. The cases were NOT prosecuted due to contract violation.
Do you understand that in order to consumer protection law to apply, you need to buying something first and that said purchase represents a contract....?
Again, not a contract it's a "Terms of Use' page. It also says in Section 3: bullet one "don't break the law." That's some awesome advice there!
Same thing.
Contract is essentially a promise you make that will be law enforced and in private law, this usually happens via ToS - an agreement between 2 parties how service will be used. Contract does not even need to be formaly signed.
Think of public transportation. Whenever you enter specfic area or use public transport vehicle, you are agreeing with ToS and any ToS breach can be law enforced.
Phaserlight pointed out, there is more into how law defines a contract than you imply or you think.
Kickstarter's Terms of Use isn't law. By taking no responsibility, Kickstarter doesn't somehow create law. Again, no contract involved in patronage (aka crowdfunding).
KS Terms of Use are irrelevant, this is distraction that is leading us down the wrong path.
KS pledging does fulfill all the requirements of a contract.
A 'pledge' certainly does not fulfill the requirements of a contract. The cases prosecuted do not go after the projects due to contract violation. They go after them for outright fraud and theft including unfair and unlawful commerce.
What connection are you making here? If someone gets prosecuted for murder does that mean they have never been party to a contract as well??
Just talking facts. Kickstarter projects aren't prosecuted for contract violation because patronage by its nature it's a contract.
Kickstarter's 'Terms of Use' doesn't somehow magically make all patronage contracts.
No you are not. Terms of Use are irrelevant. A KS pledge still fulfils all the requirements of a contract; a case would need to be brought by one of the parties to the contract. You do not understand contract law and you are wasting time with misinformation.
Again, no! Read the cases actually prosecuted. Consumer protection due to unfair business practices. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation.
Yes, because that was the specific law that could be prosecuted. That does not mean a contract does not exist. I repeat: You do not understand what you are talking about.
Really, really neat opinion, but I'm talking about actual cases prosecuted. Try actually doing some basic research on those cases.
Again, they violated law; specifically consumer protection law. The cases were NOT prosecuted due to contract violation.
Do you understand that in order to consumer protection law to apply, you need to buying something first and that said purchase represents a contract....?
Try reading State of Washington's Consumer Protection law (RCW 19.86). They didn't prosecute due to contract violation. They prosecuted because a very specific law was violated.
Again, not a contract it's a "Terms of Use' page. It also says in Section 3: bullet one "don't break the law." That's some awesome advice there!
Same thing.
Contract is essentially a promise you make that will be law enforced and in private law, this usually happens via ToS - an agreement between 2 parties how service will be used. Contract does not even need to be formaly signed.
Think of public transportation. Whenever you enter specfic area or use public transport vehicle, you are agreeing with ToS and any ToS breach can be law enforced.
Phaserlight pointed out, there is more into how law defines a contract than you imply or you think.
Kickstarter's Terms of Use isn't law. By taking no responsibility, Kickstarter doesn't somehow create law. Again, no contract involved in patronage (aka crowdfunding).
KS Terms of Use are irrelevant, this is distraction that is leading us down the wrong path.
KS pledging does fulfill all the requirements of a contract.
A 'pledge' certainly does not fulfill the requirements of a contract. The cases prosecuted do not go after the projects due to contract violation. They go after them for outright fraud and theft including unfair and unlawful commerce.
What connection are you making here? If someone gets prosecuted for murder does that mean they have never been party to a contract as well??
Just talking facts. Kickstarter projects aren't prosecuted for contract violation because patronage by its nature it's a contract.
Kickstarter's 'Terms of Use' doesn't somehow magically make all patronage contracts.
No you are not. Terms of Use are irrelevant. A KS pledge still fulfils all the requirements of a contract; a case would need to be brought by one of the parties to the contract. You do not understand contract law and you are wasting time with misinformation.
Again, no! Read the cases actually prosecuted. Consumer protection due to unfair business practices. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation.
Yes, because that was the specific law that could be prosecuted. That does not mean a contract does not exist. I repeat: You do not understand what you are talking about.
You have a neat opinion, but the actual cases were not revolved around contracts. They were prosecuted due to a specific laws being violated.
Ok, if you have no wish to overcome your ignorance, then I will leave you with it. You do not even have the most basic knowledge of how the law works, you cannot even discern the difference between statute and contract law, yet you feel the need to share your ignorance like a bad cold.
Very good. They violated a specific law (or statute) not a contract violation!
Again, try reading the actual cases. This isn't theoretical or whatever you seem to think.
Ok, to help you understand (snipped for length): -
KICKSTARTER REWARDS
For example, Kickstarter uses the word “reward” to mean the goods and servicesbackers receive after paying money to a campaign, leaving us to speculate whether T-shirts and video games and other tangible goods and services are incidental or integral to the transaction. While Kickstarter explains, albeit briefly, that their service is not a traditional storefront for people to sell currently-available goods and that the agreement between a campaigner and backer is contractual, they fail to disclose in detail that the sale of future goods, including those being pitched in Kickstarter campaigns, is wrapped in binding and enforceable law. [7]
“Kickstarter is not a store.People aren't buying things that already exist — they're helping to create new things.”
Few would argue that a farmer who sells wheat still growing in his fields has a legal obligation to deliver the ripened crop to his buyer when ready. In the same way, a software developer promising to deliver a finished product is under a similar obligation. Telling your buyer that you didn’t realize how much work it would take or deciding to develop something else mid-season hardly relieves you of your duty under the law.
KICKSTARTER PLEDGES
Kickstarter transactions are further clouded by the word pledge”, which is used to describe the money backers spend on a project, leaving people to wonder, among other things, if the money is a tax-deductible donation.
In all likelihood, it’s not a donation at all. [8] First, Kickstarter doesn't allowdonation-based rewards, [9] and second, IRS regulations allow only qualifiednon-profit organizations and registered charities to accept tax-deductibledonations. From a legal perspective, donations are what you put in the offering plate at your local church, synagogue, or mosque; not what you give to Kickstarter campaigns.
DANGEROUS WORDS
The problem is that when Kickstarter's participants assume that backers areinvesting or donating, and when they describe their products as rewards and money spent toward them as pledges or donations, they fail to recognize the contractual nature of the relationship. Peter Molyneux, for example, recently answered an interviewer’s question as to whether GODUS backers deserved a refund by saying “No. Because they didn’t buy a product.” [15]
RPS: “… do you not think after this much time that people … deserve their money back – isn’t that just basic business?”
Peter Molyneux: “No. Because they didn’t buy a product.”Rockpapershotgun.com interview (2/13/15).
Alarming as his answer may sound to someone who contributed to the GODUS project expecting to receive a copy of the game, it illustrates how wide a communication chasm can grow between campaigners and backers.
KICKSTARTER LIABILITIES
The legal implications of reward-based crowdfunding are more serious than one might think. For example, failure to deliver contracted goods and services can result in not only private civil suits but in government actions as well.
NO SHELTER IN A STORM
Kickstarter recently updated its Terms of Use, providing its clearest language yet when describing the contractual relationship that exists between campaignersand backers:
When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.” [25]
But don't look to Kickstarter to play referee if a dispute arises. If a campaign ends in a lawsuit, Kickstarter’s Terms of Use make their impunity quite clear:
“Kickstarter isn’t liable for any damages or losses related to your use of the Services. We don’t become involved in disputes between users, or between users and any third party relating to the use of the Services.... You’re solely responsible for any resulting damage or loss to any party.”[26]
SUMMARY
Peter Molyneux hasn't been sued and there's no indication that he will be. At the same time, his campaign, his admitted lofty promises, and the consumer heat rising up around him gives others a chance to consider their own Kickstarter efforts.
Kickstarter provides a unique opportunity to match those who dream big with people willing to pay in advance or give a small gift for the same. At the same time, campaigners should be mindful, before taking money from people who may rely on their words, that it’s legally and morally prudent to deliver what you promise.
Ok, to help you understand (snipped for length): -
KICKSTARTER REWARDS
For example, Kickstarter uses the word “reward” to mean the goods and servicesbackers receive after paying money to a campaign, leaving us to speculate whether T-shirts and video games and other tangible goods and services are incidental or integral to the transaction. While Kickstarter explains, albeit briefly, that their service is not a traditional storefront for people to sell currently-available goods and that the agreement between a campaigner and backer is contractual, they fail to disclose in detail that the sale of future goods, including those being pitched in Kickstarter campaigns, is wrapped in binding and enforceable law. [7]
“Kickstarter is not a store.People aren't buying things that already exist — they're helping to create new things.”
Few would argue that a farmer who sells wheat still growing in his fields has a legal obligation to deliver the ripened crop to his buyer when ready. In the same way, a software developer promising to deliver a finished product is under a similar obligation. Telling your buyer that you didn’t realize how much work it would take or deciding to develop something else mid-season hardly relieves you of your duty under the law.
KICKSTARTER PLEDGES
Kickstarter transactions are further clouded by the word pledge”, which is used to describe the money backers spend on a project, leaving people to wonder, among other things, if the money is a tax-deductible donation.
In all likelihood, it’s not a donation at all. [8] First, Kickstarter doesn't allowdonation-based rewards, [9] and second, IRS regulations allow only qualifiednon-profit organizations and registered charities to accept tax-deductibledonations. From a legal perspective, donations are what you put in the offering plate at your local church, synagogue, or mosque; not what you give to Kickstarter campaigns.
DANGEROUS WORDS
The problem is that when Kickstarter's participants assume that backers areinvesting or donating, and when they describe their products as rewards and money spent toward them as pledges or donations, they fail to recognize the contractual nature of the relationship. Peter Molyneux, for example, recently answered an interviewer’s question as to whether GODUS backers deserved a refund by saying “No. Because they didn’t buy a product.” [15]
RPS: “… do you not think after this much time that people … deserve their money back – isn’t that just basic business?”
Peter Molyneux: “No. Because they didn’t buy a product.”Rockpapershotgun.com interview (2/13/15).
Alarming as his answer may sound to someone who contributed to the GODUS project expecting to receive a copy of the game, it illustrates how wide a communication chasm can grow between campaigners and backers.
KICKSTARTER LIABILITIES
The legal implications of reward-based crowdfunding are more serious than one might think. For example, failure to deliver contracted goods and services can result in not only private civil suits but in government actions as well.
NO SHELTER IN A STORM
Kickstarter recently updated its Terms of Use, providing its clearest language yet when describing the contractual relationship that exists between campaignersand backers:
When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.” [25]
But don't look to Kickstarter to play referee if a dispute arises. If a campaign ends in a lawsuit, Kickstarter’s Terms of Use make their impunity quite clear:
“Kickstarter isn’t liable for any damages or losses related to your use of the Services. We don’t become involved in disputes between users, or between users and any third party relating to the use of the Services.... You’re solely responsible for any resulting damage or loss to any party.”[26]
SUMMARY
Peter Molyneux hasn't been sued and there's no indication that he will be. At the same time, his campaign, his admitted lofty promises, and the consumer heat rising up around him gives others a chance to consider their own Kickstarter efforts.
Kickstarter provides a unique opportunity to match those who dream big with people willing to pay in advance or give a small gift for the same. At the same time, campaigners should be mindful, before taking money from people who may rely on their words, that it’s legally and morally prudent to deliver what you promise.
Patronage isn't a contract. The above simply states Kickstarter takes zero share of the responsibility (while taking a share of the money raised). That's not a 'contract'; that's Kickstarter taking zero responsibility and liability.
It is indeed a contract.
That is why those law suits about KS rewards are happening because that is only thing binding in said contract.
Pledging still does not make you a customer though...
92 million later, I think CIG can take a big fat crap on the 2 million from Kickstarter.
Just sayin.. They earn that per month. On their own site. On their own terms. Since Nov.2012
Good luck with force refunding Kickstarter backers giving up their early rewards, they don´t even want a refund. Good luck with Kickstarter force refunding THEIR revenue cut (150K) Good luck with fighting an ESTIMATED delivery date. Good luck with fighting stretch goals that have been hit which everyone with half a brain should know prolongs development. Good luck with all of it.
Did I say good luck yet? Good luck.
I´m laughing my ass off right now seeing people arguing over 2% of the SC budget for 10 pages.
Kickstarter.. hahah
quick people go catch that evil 2% of the SC budget. Get your revenge on that evil estimated delivery date. Quick! rofl
Is bit weird, whats worse is the ones who pledged don't give a crap about it. They're happy with the development and the information being released. If It fails or goes under that's a lesson learned for them and no one else, considering they asked for the scope of the game to change in the first place lol
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
That's nice and all, but if a "contract" violates existing consumer protection or other law, it is "unenforceable".
That is why, for example, several software EULAs have been found to be defective when litigated. Just because something is in an agreement does not make it valid. (Personally, I don't even think KS's disclaimer of all responsibility towards all activities through its website would survive legal scrutiny in all cases.)
For instance, if KS put in a clause in their contract that said if a KS project runner failed to deliver a product, I was allowed to go to his house and kick him in the balls, would that be legal? No. Why? Because assault is illegal.
An illegal contract, even when it exists, is not enforceable.
SlothnChunk said: Again, no! Read the cases actually prosecuted. Consumer protection due to unfair business practices. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
Ignorant.
You conveniently run out of things to copy and paste when asked to provide a SINGLE case where a Kickstater contract was violated!!!!
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
Ignorant.
You conveniently run out of things to copy and paste when asked to provide a SINGLE case where a Kickstater contract was violated!!!!
Because my point has been proven beyond doubt. A contract exists. You are just squirming around looking for a "win" with no knowledge of the argument you are attempting to make.
SlothnChunk said: Again, no! Read the cases actually prosecuted. Consumer protection due to unfair business practices. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
Ignorant.
You conveniently run out of things to copy and paste when asked to provide a SINGLE case where a Kickstater contract was violated!!!!
Because my point has been proven beyond doubt. A contract exists. You are just squirming around looking for a "win" with no knowledge of the argument you are attempting to make.
Awesome....nothing to copy and paste when it comes to a specific example of a Kickstarter contract violation?
'Points' are neat as is your opinion, but try citing an actual case.
You're looking for a defintive statement while ignoring the reason for a case even getting to court. The reason being - the breaking of a contract. A case will be looked at and judged whether the terms of a contract between two parties have been violated enough that restitution can be sought.
That's neat...more 'Terms of Use' from Kickstarter's legal term resulting in them taking zero responsibility for any of the projects.
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
It does not change that a contract exists. Just because someone has not sued for breach of contract does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sure wire or bank fraud also theoretically applies to some failed project out there. But I'm talking about ACTUAL cases prosecuted. They were not prosecuted due to contract violation. And can you name someone who successfully sued a project over contract failure?
Your premise was that there is no contract. You are wrong.
Prove it then. Out of thousands of Kickstarter projects provide one example where the contract was violated.
Ignorant.
You conveniently run out of things to copy and paste when asked to provide a SINGLE case where a Kickstater contract was violated!!!!
Who gives a damn? SC Kickstarter as pointed out above is 2% of the budget.
No one wants a refund. If they wanted maybe it´s 2% of the 2% ? 10% of the 2 %? Big effing deal arguing over 200K when they have close to 94 million total development budget. LOL
You're looking for a defintive statement while ignoring the reason for a case even getting to court. The reason being - the breaking of a contract. A case will be looked at and judged whether the terms of a contract between two parties have been violated enough that restitution can be sought.
That's not why Kickstarter projects were prosecuted. They violated specific laws not contracts. Again, how hard is it to read the actual cases?
Again, they violated law; specifically consumer protection law. The cases were NOT prosecuted due to contract violation.
Do you understand that in order to consumer protection law to apply, you need to buying something first and that said purchase represents a contract....?
Try reading State of Washington's Consumer Protection law (RCW 19.86). They didn't prosecute due to contract violation. They prosecuted because a very specific law was violated.
Well duh:
Why the hell would the State of Washington prosecute a contract dispute between 3rd parties? Wouldn't that be a civil case between said parties?
Oh ya... The State of Washington is prosecuting for the breaking of the law.
Comments
Again, try reading the actual cases. This isn't theoretical or whatever you seem to think.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
KICKSTARTER REWARDS
For example, Kickstarter uses the word “reward” to mean the goods and servicesbackers receive after paying money to a campaign, leaving us to speculate whether T-shirts and video games and other tangible goods and services are incidental or integral to the transaction. While Kickstarter explains, albeit briefly, that their service is not a traditional storefront for people to sell currently-available goods and that the agreement between a campaigner and backer is contractual, they fail to disclose in detail that the sale of future goods, including those being pitched in Kickstarter campaigns, is wrapped in binding and enforceable law. [7]
Few would argue that a farmer who sells wheat still growing in his fields has a legal obligation to deliver the ripened crop to his buyer when ready. In the same way, a software developer promising to deliver a finished product is under a similar obligation. Telling your buyer that you didn’t realize how much work it would take or deciding to develop something else mid-season hardly relieves you of your duty under the law.
KICKSTARTER PLEDGES
Kickstarter transactions are further clouded by the word pledge”, which is used to describe the money backers spend on a project, leaving people to wonder, among other things, if the money is a tax-deductible donation.
In all likelihood, it’s not a donation at all. [8] First, Kickstarter doesn't allowdonation-based rewards, [9] and second, IRS regulations allow only qualifiednon-profit organizations and registered charities to accept tax-deductibledonations. From a legal perspective, donations are what you put in the offering plate at your local church, synagogue, or mosque; not what you give to Kickstarter campaigns.
DANGEROUS WORDS
The problem is that when Kickstarter's participants assume that backers areinvesting or donating, and when they describe their products as rewards and money spent toward them as pledges or donations, they fail to recognize the contractual nature of the relationship. Peter Molyneux, for example, recently answered an interviewer’s question as to whether GODUS backers deserved a refund by saying “No. Because they didn’t buy a product.” [15]
Alarming as his answer may sound to someone who contributed to the GODUS project expecting to receive a copy of the game, it illustrates how wide a communication chasm can grow between campaigners and backers.
KICKSTARTER LIABILITIES
The legal implications of reward-based crowdfunding are more serious than one might think. For example, failure to deliver contracted goods and services can result in not only private civil suits but in government actions as well.
NO SHELTER IN A STORM
Kickstarter recently updated its Terms of Use, providing its clearest language yet when describing the contractual relationship that exists between campaignersand backers:
But don't look to Kickstarter to play referee if a dispute arises. If a campaign ends in a lawsuit, Kickstarter’s Terms of Use make their impunity quite clear:
SUMMARY
Peter Molyneux hasn't been sued and there's no indication that he will be. At the same time, his campaign, his admitted lofty promises, and the consumer heat rising up around him gives others a chance to consider their own Kickstarter efforts.
Kickstarter provides a unique opportunity to match those who dream big with people willing to pay in advance or give a small gift for the same. At the same time, campaigners should be mindful, before taking money from people who may rely on their words, that it’s legally and morally prudent to deliver what you promise.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-your-kickstarter-legal-liabilities-dan-rogers
Now try reading the actual cases prosecuted.
That is why, for example, several software EULAs have been found to be defective when litigated. Just because something is in an agreement does not make it valid. (Personally, I don't even think KS's disclaimer of all responsibility towards all activities through its website would survive legal scrutiny in all cases.)
For instance, if KS put in a clause in their contract that said if a KS project runner failed to deliver a product, I was allowed to go to his house and kick him in the balls, would that be legal? No. Why? Because assault is illegal.
An illegal contract, even when it exists, is not enforceable.
http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/201507221452.pdf
"3.11 According to Kickstarter's Terms and Conditions, project creators are legally bound to fulfill backer rewards if funding is successful"
The court, in its judgement, accepted Kickstarter terms that you called "made up 'legal' non-sense" just earlier.
Without that specific law you don't violate Kickstarter's 'Terms and Conditions' as they aren't legally applicable alone.
I self identify as a monkey.
'Points' are neat as is your opinion, but try citing an actual case.
No one wants a refund. If they wanted maybe it´s 2% of the 2% ? 10% of the 2 %?
Big effing deal arguing over 200K when they have close to 94 million total development budget. LOL
Why the hell would the State of Washington prosecute a contract dispute between 3rd parties? Wouldn't that be a civil case between said parties?
Oh ya... The State of Washington is prosecuting for the breaking of the law.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee