Page:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3).pdf/91

 313 However, later on 3 May 2013, a further response was sent by "Support Tech Tony" as follows:

Hello Caleb

Upon reviewing your ticket I can see that you want a refund for the following titles: NyxQuest, Anna, Dear Esther, Plants vs. Zombies and Thirty Flights of Loving. I was also able to confirm that they have had no significant play time, so a refund should not be a problem. I can refund these purchases and the funds will be deposited into your Steam Wallet. Please confirm if this will be satisfactory.

314 On 3 May 2013, a message was sent by Mr Miller as follows:

Yes that will be fine thank you

Caleb

315 On 3 May 2013, a message was sent by "Support Tech Tony" as follows:

Hello Caleb

Your wallet has been credited $13.35 and the licenses for those games have been removed from your account. Please let us know if you require further assistance.

Representations 6, 7, 8, and 9: the submissions and conclusions

316 Although the ACCC pleaded these final four representations separately and made submissions about them separately there is significant artificiality in this approach. The four "representations" were alleged to have been made in the course of online chats which can be treated as a single (ongoing) conversation. Some of the statements alleged to give rise to one representation appear to contradict another. For instance, when the conversation is read as a whole, it makes little sense for Valve to be representing that it had no obligation to make a refund until recourse was had to a developer at the same time as it was allegedly representing that it had no obligation to make a refund at all. Further, it was common ground that all the statements needed to be read together, rather than independently, when considering each representation.

317 The sixth representation, as alleged by the ACCC was that Valve was under no obligation to repair, replace or refund video games it supplied that were not of acceptable quality unless the consumer had first attempted to troubleshoot the problems with the video game developer (No Obligation Where No Recourse to Developer Representation).

318 The seventh representation, as alleged by the ACCC, was that Valve was under no obligation to provide a refund to a consumer in any circumstances where the computer games it had supplied were not of acceptable quality (No Obligation to Refund Representation).