Because the game was not sold by most retailers in France and was restricted to over-18s in Germany, the licensee was entitled to certain compensations in the terms of its deal with the licensor, which had pre-empted the risk of censorship affecting sales. However, the licensor sued when the licensee failed to meet payments, prompting a dispute over the requirements of the complex licence agreement.
The licensor sought to terminate the agreement for non-payment. Several questions came before the court. One was whether on termination, the licensee was still entitled to the compensation provisions that applied in the event of censorship. The court ruled that it was not so entitled.
Further, the court ruled that certain contract provisions could not apply because it was “entirely uncertain” if the conditions they relied upon would ever be met, “even if the contract had continued in full force.”
The final question before the appeals court was whether the licensor could enforce certain penalty rights on termination. Again, the court found in its favour, ruling that the licensee lost its benefits by having “imperilled its licence as a whole, by acting in breach.”