My Take On the "Legal" Issue:
I feel a great deal of concern when I see multi-billion dollar corporations (apparently) signing away JohnnyPublic's civil rights without due process; rights which were previously enshrined in and protected by law. I would like to add the following to any preceding clarifications:

As pointed out earlier, breaching terms of an EULA may not necessarily be "illegal" in no crime was committed (IP theft and piracy aside). But there is a lot of grey area in EULA contract law and unfortunately, there's no clear, cut, and dry interpretation of what parts, if any, of an EULA agreement are applicable and/or enforceable under law.

One of the chief arguments is that consumers are unable to read through and assent to the terms of the agreement before they make their purchase a product with in which the EULA is enclosed and sealed (re: rendered inaccessible). The other major point is that the licensor (Blizzard in this case) cannot provide proof that the licensee actually "signed" any such document. The person playing the game may not be the person who purchased, installed, or otherwise transferred ownership of the product (and its attached EULA) for use. For a contract like this to be applicable, as I understand things, the licensor must be able to provide receipt of the current owner/user's acknowledgement and assent to the terms of the EULA contract.

Another important but murky area includes such factors as jurisdiction (applicability of the EULA under the laws where you live) and the nature of the specific terms being disputed. With that in mind, and if you all will permit me a moment to C.M.A., I do not endorse activities, such as software piracy and the like, that are genuinely "illegal". Most courts will not hesitate to uphold the TOS and EULA agreements that licensees will not pirate the licensor’s intellectual properties. But it is not so clear whether or not if the courts would, from one jurisdiction to the next, consider "transferring" ownership of one's account for a fee, with all its combined assets, as a breech of the EULA if it also includes the software with which it was created/disclosed as part of the sale. The question of "following the equities" needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

Also note that Blizzard's EULA contains such statements as, "The game ... is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind," making it follow the Contract of Adhesion form (a contract that is entered into between unequal bargaining partners), and brings into question whether or not the EULA as stated or portions of it is "conscionable". If it is found that it is not, parts of or indeed the entire document may be dismissed in court.

Care needs to be taken when considering what one's rights actually are as in the case of Caspi v. Microsoft Network, in which disputes arose over the billing practices, which were described under the EULA and presented in typical clickwrap form. In this case, the court proceedings took place in MS's home state of Washington, and they ultimately ruled in favor of MS and upheld the clickwrap agreement. Note that Blizzard states its preference for courts within the County of Los Angeles, State of California - its home turf - in section 14g of the EULA document when and where disputes that would not go quite the way Blizzard would like them to in other jurisdictions might arise.

Personally, when it comes to transferring ownership of software and selling one's "time invested" into growing the account's assorted assets, these are two separate items. One’s personal investiture of time is not an intellectual or physical property of Blizzard or any other 3rd party. To my way of thinking, Blizzard has no rights leveraging control over how people market "their time" and that they seek to do so is unconscionable. When it comes to mega-corporations screwing over our civil liberties, I'm all about pushing back and maybe leaving a black eye or two (figuratively speaking).

Thus, if I were transferring the software product and its related accounts at a fair market value (the cost of the product at retail); this value does not infringe upon Blizzard's EULA. If I then attach a value to the time I spent developing the account, Blizzard has no right to stop me from doing so. Those are my hours and I keep or sell them as I please. And since I have not sold any of Blizzard's Intellectual Propeties (Gold, Epic items, characters, etc.), as those were included in the transfer and no breech of the EULA was comitted, Blizzard then should have no quarrel with me.

But that's just my opinion.

Whee! That was fun!

Additional/Supplementary Reading:
For those who are interested, here are some excerpts from some of the material that I drew upon for my comments above:

Originally Posted by Regarding the applicability and/or enforceability of clickwrap EULAs

Some copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the limitations in sections 107-122 of the United States Copyright Act), or to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a certain number or beyond a certain period of time). Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matter upon which copyright law precludes control.

[Snip]

For the license to take legal effect, the licenser must be able to present proof of that the presumed licensee has been willing to sign away the copy owner rights granted under copyright: The international copyright treaty, Article 4, equals computer programs with literary works. Thus, computer programs are automatically placed under copyright, which grants the copy owner normal rights use, and others fair use the computer material. The signing away of ones legal rights can normally only be done by a properly signed paper contract, or under some circumstances, orally if supported by witnesses or recordings, or, in even more restricted use, via electronic signatures issued by the local government, as a person charged with violating a license agreement otherwise can merely claim not knowing who opened the box or clicked the agreement box in the install software, and it is not possible for the licenser to provide proof of whom is the purported licencee, nor has the person charged any obligation to provide such proof. In addition, legal rights can only be signed away if local law admits it; so a properly signed paper contract may not be enough to abrogate copy owners rights, unless there are special legal provisions admitting it.

[Snip]

It may be worth noting that the user in the Zeidenberg case had purchased and opened the packages of multiple copies of the product, and therefore could not easily prove he remained ignorant of the contract/license; whereas in many cases, the so-called shrink-wrap "license" agreement has not been reviewed at the time of purchase (having been hidden inside the box), and therefore is arguably not part of the sale of the copy, and thus not enforceable by either party without further "manifestation of assent" to its terms. In general, a user is not obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc.

[Snip]

Theoretical issues [with Contracts of Adhesion]:

• Standard form contracts are rarely read. Lengthy boilerplate terms are often in small print and written in complicated legal language which often seems irrelevant. The prospect of a buyer finding any useful information from reading such terms is correspondingly low. Even if such information is discovered the consumer is in no position to bargain as the contract is presented on a “take it or leave it” basis. Coupled with the often large amount of time needed to read the terms, the expected payoff from reading the contract is low and few people would be expected to read it.[citation needed]
• Access to the full terms may be difficult or impossible before acceptance. Often the document being signed is not the full contract; the purchaser is told that the rest of the terms are in another location. This reduces the likelihood of the terms being read and in some situations, such as software end user license agreements, can only be read after they have been notionally accepted by purchasing the good.
• Boilerplate terms are not salient. The most important terms to purchasers of a good are generally the price and the quality, which are generally understood before the contract of adhesion is signed. Terms relating to events which have very small probabilities of occurring or which refer to particular statutes or legal rules do not seem important to the purchaser. This further lowers the chance of such terms being read and also means they are likely to be ignored even if they are read.
• There may be social pressure to sign. Standard form contracts are signed at a point when the main details of the transaction have either been negotiated or explained. Social pressure to conclude the bargain at that point may come from a number of sources. The salesperson may imply that the purchaser is being unreasonable if they read or question the terms, saying that they are ‘just something the lawyers want us to do’ or that they are wasting their time reading them. If the purchaser is at the front of a queue (for example at an airport car rental desk) there is additional pressure to sign quickly. Finally, if there has been negotiation over price or particular details then concessions given by the salesperson may be seen as a gift which socially obliges the purchaser to respond by being co-operative and concluding the transaction.
• Standard form contracts may exploit unequal power relations. If the good which is being sold using a contract of adhesion is one which is essential or very important for the purchaser to buy (such as a rental property or a needed medical item) then the purchaser might have no choice but to accept the terms.

Sources:
Wikipedia article - "EULA"
Wikipedia article - "Clickwrap Contract"
Wikipedia article - "Shrink Wrap Contract"
Wikipedia article - "Contract of adhesion" <-- Thise one is especially poignant
E LAW | Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law - "Copyright Policy" <-- Another thick, but good read.

Originally Posted by Blizzard's acknowlegement that their EULA may not be applicable, under law, in all cases

(Scattered throughout the document: ) "Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of implied warranties, so the above limitations may not apply to you."

(Section 14)
f. Governing Law. Except as expressly provided otherwise, this License Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. For our customers who purchased a license to the Game in, and are a resident of, Canada, Australia, Singapore, or New Zealand, other laws may apply if choose not to agree to arbitrate as set forth above, and in such an event, shall affect this Agreement only to the extent required by such jurisdiction. In such a case, this Agreement shall be interpreted to give maximum effect to the terms and conditions hereof. If you purchased your license to the Game in New Zealand, and are a resident of New Zealand, The New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act of 1993 ("Act") may apply to the Game and/or the Service as supplied by Blizzard to you. If the Act applies, then notwithstanding any other provision in this License Agreement, you may have rights or remedies as set out in the Act which may apply in addition to, or, to the extent that they are inconsistent, instead of, the rights or remedies set out in this License Agreement. Those who choose to access the Service from locations outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore, or New Zealand do so on their own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws if and to the extent local laws are applicable.

g. Severability. You and Blizzard agree that if any portion Section 14 is found illegal or unenforceable (except any portion of 14(d)) that portion shall be severed and the remainder of the Section shall be given full force and effect. If Section 14(d) is found to be illegal or unenforceable then neither you nor Blizzard will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of Section 14(d) found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America, and you and Blizzard agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court.

Source: WoW EULA