The fishy part is the “taking in account the EULA” since EULAs are not legally valid documents in most of the World.
Licenses explicitly accepted by the buyer before the purchase, sure, EULAs, no, since they’re treated as an attempt to, after the implied contract which is the sale, unilaterally change the contract.
The court order makes some sense because that’s basically to do with inheritance and who gets to inherit what, but the EULA “consideration” is complete total bollocks.
The fishy part is the “taking in account the EULA” since EULAs are not legally valid documents in most of the World.
Licenses explicitly accepted by the buyer before the purchase, sure, EULAs, no, since they’re treated as an attempt to, after the implied contract which is the sale, unilaterally change the contract.
The court order makes some sense because that’s basically to do with inheritance and who gets to inherit what, but the EULA “consideration” is complete total bollocks.