I hope htown1980 will reply since this lawyer battle is far more interesting than the boring discussion about "this game in the bundle... bla bla... THQ... bla bla" and so on. Who needs a topic for a thread anyway.
On an unrelated note, New South Wales immediately reminds me of this great sketch by Mitchell&Webb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13RhSc-DaOI

No never said that. Although my degrees are in fields arguably equally close to ethical theory as a law degree is.

I am curious - why is law removed from ethics?

Because the two have no common ground?

Heh reminds me of this popular joke:

It's actually a mandatory course. At least over here.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding.

You said that you thought a contract was between two equal partners. Now you are saying that a contract is not something were [sic] two people work against each other. I am not suggesting that a contract is something where two people work against each other (although I have on occasion seen parties to a contract do just that, and it is a huge pain). All I am saying is that a contract is not necessarily between two equal partners.

For example, I have a mediation this morning. My client is an international company with a revenue of in excess of $10 billion per annum. The Defendants are a small company with fewer than 10 employees and a revenue of a couple of million per year (as well as the directors of that company). There are also third parties and a fourth party. The dispute as between my client and the Defendants is a contractual dispute.

It is absurd to suggest that my client and this other small company are or were "equal partners". Putting to one side that "partners" has a particular meaning here, one of the (we would say unmeritorious) defences raised by the defendant company is that it was in a position of weakness relative to my client and that my client took advantage of that weakness by signing them up to a contract which they say contained unfair terms - unconscionable conduct. It is fair to say that the terms of the contract are more onerous for the defendants than for my client, but that is the nature of the contract.

Unconscionable conduct, misleading and deceptive conduct, undue influence all recognise that the parties to a contract are often not equal. My only point was that it is incorrect to say that "a contract [is] between two equal partners".

A contract is between two parties. They may or may not be equal.

I had the notions that law, ethics and philosophy have the same origins... going back to Plato, Cicero and so on.

Pretty sure they had laws before Plato and Cicero.

they had philosophy and ethics before then also :)

Equal as in:

Equal value. Equal in regards how they should be treated. Equal before the law. I wasn't using legal terms, but ethical terms. You brought in the legal act. Equal partners in an socio-economic context.

The point of the discussion is that one has to only serve the other. And I said no, because they are equal. Because both parties have responsibilities and rights be they by contract or law.

I wasn't suggesting that a company is a human.

You brought up an act which forbid unfair business practise or something like this to say this isn't the case. Which would roughly be the same as saying humans are not equal in value because there is a law against murder.

And this stands. Even in the case of the law, both parties are considered equal. They might have different rights. Different obligations. But no party is inherently better or worse than the other. Every claim you can make in a relationship between a developer and a consumer (considering you made a deal with the dev for simplicity sake) has to come either from the contract or by law. Not because the devs "has to serve your every whim". It is completely unimportant if a person is a rich billionaire or a poor schmock. Both have (theoretically) equal rights before the law. Same goes for companies (as far as the laws are applicable).

Bringing factors into a legal decision which are not important by law or contract is the fastest way I know to get a judgement repealed.

You really should know better than to read what you want into a single response. You know, that could get you into trouble.

And you found a spelling mistake. Good for you! I'm sure there are a few in what I just typed.
Our laws go actually back to the slave trade of the Romans. ;-P

Sounds weird (and slightly hyperbolic), but most of what we are using know was established by the Romans. Knowing them, they probably stole it somewhere, too.

But the philosophical impacts of the law are much more recent. Kant basically wrote the UN Charta. While you could of course say that the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment and beyond were also only copying the old dudes, it is there spin on things that is more relevant in general than the old sources.

Funny stuff happens when two laws of two different philosophical origins collide. The German penal code is mainly influenced by Idealistic thoughts. The juvenile penal code however, by positivism. Now, both are pretty much the extreme opposite in how they affected the laws they influenced. What makes this especially bad is that only the Idealistic position gets thought in law school. Guess how good our juvenile delinquency laws are applied? ...

Edit:

Maybe I should mention that philosophy is much more important with constitutional law, basic rights and criminal law then with your run down civil law. Kant really didn't have much to say about a car sale...

how about a competition - the first lawyer who gets to start the 60th page with his/her comment wins!

The cool kids use the 50 post per page view ;-P

Ethical theory is required as opposed to legal ethics?

I don't know how big the difference is as in actual classes. One is called "legal ethics" and you get a bunch of other stuff in the relevant other courses.

But there is no "ethical theory" course. It's not as good as studying philosophy, but it's fairly comprehensive. Because in Germany your legal training is universal. I can become literally anything from lawyer to DA to judge to notary directly after law school. And especially judges in administrative or criminal law really need to know some of those basics.

Legal ethics is actually akin the Sword of Damocles. You can make it through law school without ever being bothered by it. But it is part of the curriculum and they can choose from the whole curriculum when you are having your exams. And because ethics are considered so important, you better not fuck them up if they come up.