A random outsider couldn't do it obviously. But imagine if you had standing to sue, i.e. you signed up and paid for ZenDesk based on this advertising, and then later realized they were lying.
In that case, the plaintiff would sue for the damage caused by the lie, which would include the amount paid for the software.
The only case in which you might get the source code as a result is if you paid for the source code. Which is the complete opposite claim of what is being made on this page.
And the amount you can collect is limited by section 14.2 of their Master Subscription Agreement to the amount paid to them in the last 12 months. [0] To get more you would have to show they committed fraud or were grossly negligent, which could then invalidate the contract. IANAL but this stuff is pretty standard.
I don't think that's true - common law would consider the contract void when broken or not properly met, and award damages, not enforce it.
If a builder doesn't finish building a wall they award damages - they don't march them back to your house and make them finish building. That's a pretty fundamental part of common law.
Look at the examples given in your own article - they aren't going to translate to this situation. They're talking about contracts involving unique items where simply cancelling the contract can't resolve it. If you buy something and what turns up isn't what you want you can just return it.
Potentially so, but if there was never a contract to exchange money for source code, then there is no performance you'd be entitled to.
It doesn't logically make sense to concurrently argue that you were misled that the software is FOSS and believe that you exchanged money for source code.
Talk me through how that gets to a court order to release source code. What legislation or precedents are there for that? If there aren't any, how would a judge arrive at that decision?
