Game to buy equipment is game company Warcraft, players sued Grand losing

Last year, the Chongqing Jiulongpo Cao some of the game equipment bought by the game company confiscated, he sued to the court to return, a few days ago, the Jiulongpo District court decision rejected Cao's request. What is this all about?

The court found that Cao, 31 years old, is the Shanghai Grand Network Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanda Company) operated by the large-scale online network game "blood legend" players. Last February 21, Cao in the game's trading platform spent 7,664 piece of silver piece (equivalent to about 7000 yuan) purchased the "Rebirth wrist", "enhanced Resurrection Ring", "Resurrection wrist" three game equipment, at the same time to the grand company paid 20 silver piece transaction fees.

The next day 1 o'clock in the morning, Cao found 3 pieces of equipment was missing. Originally, the Grand company said, Cao bought these three pieces of equipment is stolen goods, to delete the form confiscated. Cao some think this is in the auction platform through legal means to buy, but the company refused to refund the equipment, also refused to return 7,664 silver piece and 20 silver piece transaction fees. Subsequently, Cao a grand company sued to Jiulongpo District court, request immediately return three pieces of game equipment, and compensation 8000 yuan.

In court, Shanda argued that the company had frozen and returned the three-piece game equipment as requested by the police, and therefore did not have a return and compensation obligation. Originally, February 22 last year, Shenzhen police to the grand Company issued a "Verification game equipment Notice", the police asked Shanda company to verify the stolen goods and all returned.

Jiulongpo District Court that the Public Security Department notice in three of the game equipment attributes and the same attributes as Cao bought equipment, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court found that the game equipment Cao bought is the public security department said that the other stolen goods. Shanda Company is according to the requirements of the Public Security Department to the three pieces of the purchase of the game equipment to buckle, does not constitute a violation of Cao. The court's first-instance decision dismissed all claims by Cao.

There are two ways to recover the damage.

The judge in the case that the grand company based on public security organs of the administrative order of stolen equipment for the deduction of the behavior, there is no fault. Cao has acquired the ownership of the immovable or movable property in accordance with the law 106th "the assignee is in good faith in the case of property or movable property." "Rules, that the royal company without authorization to buckle equipment and refused to return the silver piece of the act of infringement of his bona fide acquisition of the real right of the claim can not be established.

The judge said that the trading platform in the game is provided by Shanda, and that it collects fees for players ' transactions, in which case, if the game User agreement stipulates that Shanda has a regulatory obligation to deal with the security of players and the legality of the sale of goods on the platform, In this case, Cao in the company provided by the trading platform to purchase illegal stolen goods, he can according to the agreement of the user agreements to assert rights.

Chongqing Evening News Lawyers Group members, Chongqing Hopewell Law firm Lu Lei Lawyers also believe that the game equipment as stolen goods by the game company deduction, in view of Cao is a bona fide acquisition, he can ask the seller for compensation, if the company has a supervision obligations, but also can request the company to assume responsibility.