Wake Up Smell The Coffee

I think you misunderstood me. I'm a buyer, not a seller.. The lower the L$ goes, the better it is for me, because the in-world value of the L$ hasn't changed that much.

However, just as there's no economy without buyers, there's also no economy wihtout sellers. So having a supportive environment for the sellers is important as well. Though I'd love to get L$500/$1, the loss of vendors would make that money useless.

My original post was in support of the OP. I believe the largest anchor around the L$'s ankles is that people are carrying more tier than they can safely afford, leading them to sell at ever lower rates rather than wait a week or so for more profit. And this latest movement with the introduction of buy orders, only supports this IMO.

So, in this instance, my definition of absurd, is selling at a rate that hurts themselves for no good reason. Honestly, working a minimum-wage job just 2 days a week (16 hours) is enough to pay tier for an island sim, and put $20/wk into your pocket *after* taxes. Then all the SL income is just gravy.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm a buyer, not a seller.. The lower the L$ goes, the better it is for me, because the in-world value of the L$ hasn't changed that much.

However, just as there's no economy without buyers, there's also no economy wihtout sellers. So having a supportive environment for the sellers is important as well. Though I'd love to get L$500/$1, the loss of vendors would make that money useless.

My original post was in support of the OP. I believe the largest anchor around the L$'s ankles is that people are carrying more tier than they can safely afford, leading them to sell at ever lower rates rather than wait a week or so for more profit. And this latest movement with the introduction of buy orders, only supports this IMO.

So, in this instance, my definition of absurd, is selling at a rate that hurts themselves for no good reason. Honestly, working a minimum-wage job just 2 days a week (16 hours) is enough to pay tier for an island sim, and put $20/wk into your pocket *after* taxes. Then all the SL income is just gravy.

%0.11 a day. Supposed to go down to %0.10 a day some time in June

Because class action lawsuits are often filed against businesses in the US. Breach your contract with a few thousand of your customers and they can sue you as a group.

Why didn't you read the fine print?

But if your mobile phone provider advertised a feature and you signed on with the expectation of that feature, wouldn't the removal of that feature be breach of contract? Not to mention false advertising.

It is rather silly. I don't think that LL would trade stipends for land. Land costs LL USD in server space and other expenses. The sitpend costs LL next to nothing to dole out.

Star-

They can give tier just as easily though. Of course it eventually has to be backed with hardware at some point.

There is an 'acknowledged' land surplus in SecondLife. Increasing the 'base' land allocation for premium accounts from 512sqm to 1024sqm will probably not require more servers be deployed.

Whether land is owned by us or govenor Linden it costs LL the same to operate those servers. Of course, if the base allocation were to go UP, it would throw the tier fees structure into chaos...

but it might also raise the demand for land as well, and, perhaps, increase land values.)

Consideration in contract law means something entirely different.

"Consideration is defined as a bargain for the exchange of something of value. An example of consideration is the sale of a car for payment (e.g. the sale of a Toyota for $3,000). Consideration is a central concept in the common law of contracts. Under classical contract theory, consideration is required for a contract to be enforceable."

This is consideration as defined by US law, according to the Wikipedia.

"Consideration under English law is a very controversial doctrine comprising a series of sub rules which purport to govern when a promise made by one party may be enforced by the party to whom the promise is made. Consideration in its traditional form in English law means no more no less than this: that, for parties to be able to enforce a promise, they must have given some quid pro quo for it: something in exchange or return for the promise. I.e something for something.

A contract is not enforceable under English law unless it is met with consideration. In other words, if a contract contains promises that are unsupported by consideration, then the contract is void ab initio. Consideration is sometimes found baffling to students new to the field of contract. Definitions have been offered through judgements in common law, however it is most easily exemplified as a 'thing' (for want of a better word) which is exchanged under the contract which buys the other party's 'thing' or promise.

In Australia, the bargain theory of consideration prevails, where the act or forebearance of one party or promise thereof, is the price for which a promise is bought."


As defined by English common law, once again, according to Wikipedia. Left in the bit about Australia, cos that's where I live.


In this instance, the consideration is the premium fee.


The TOS may be challengeable, contrary to some posters statements, if you could show it was somehow unconciousable.


If a relevant consumer law eg was to contradict the TOS, that law would prevail over the contract. (I'm pretty sure this is true of US law, as well as English common law. I'm familiar with the latter.)

"Why didn't you read the fine print?"

I did read the fine print. You misunderstand. I am not complaining that they changed the billing system; I am saying that they were perfectly within their rights to do so, as they had stated they retain that right in the terms of service.

"But if your mobile phone provider advertised a feature and you signed on with the expectation of that feature, wouldn't the removal of that feature be breach of contract? Not to mention false advertising."

If the contract stated "we offer this feature in our contract, but may remove or alter this feature at any time without warning and without compensation", then that is not breach of contract.

Two things for you to do:

1: Find out if such a statement exists in the SL TOS relating to premium stipends.
2: Remember that LL have not ever even hinted that premium stipends are under threat; only basic stipends are, and basic accounts do not have a contract.

Musuko.

^ Use the quote button. Then we can see what is a quote, what is your reply, and we'll know who you're quoting. You've had 248 posts to find it.

"Use the quote button. Then we can see what is a quote"

That's what these are for: " ". They're called quotation marks. Ever guess why that is?

"and we'll know who you're quoting."

What is being said, not who is saying it, is what is important.

Musuko.

In the context of a forum post, that is not clear at all. You could be quoting from your favourite novel for all we know. So no, a quote mark doesn't cut it. Who said it is important, if you're going to quote someone, we need to know who you're quoting, and it seems poor form to quote someone without attributing the quote. And there's a nice easy button that does it all.

You often have something worth saying, but your point is easily lost because your posts are unclear. Up to you.

But if you're gonna quote me, use my name. It's just manners.

^ See how you can clearly tell I quoted you and what the reply to your quote is?

Not an issue to me either way I do not need to make money in Second Life to play Second life. If the Linden becomes worthless and the economy shuts down it will do nothing to me. There will still be business transactions just using dollars instead of Lindens. Rent can be paid in dollars and content can be purchased in dollars.



So my stipend becomes worthless, again not an issue. So I am self centered, think most residents are this. Look at the junk in the sky, the griefers, the security script users, the privacy jerks, the no trespassing types, etc. Second Life is a very cold hostile place! If it was not for my friends would have quit months ago. The nature of SL is going down and not up or in other words a more hostile place.

I do not think that threads about stipends, security scripts, "land" rights, etc do any good at all and perhaps promote hostility. Sort of pointless since Linden Labs sets policy.

It is my kibo (hope) that residents show conserdiation for each other and please remember.

Yes, but the consideration must be given to both sides.

In the case of the ToS - as with most software licenses - the consideration issue is that the agreement is legally binding on the customer to pay the costs or fees, but is not binding on the supplier to deliver the thing being paid for - SL doesn't have to stay up, the client doesn't have to work on your PC, etc.

That it asks you to agree to pay "$9.99-a-month-definately-for-sure" in exchange for "L$500-a-week-maybe-possibly-withdrawn-anytime" is the consideration issue.

Right, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Ginko takes $L out to invest in RL short-term instruments. This explains the lack of liquidity and time delay when processing large withdrawls. I propose keeping the $L (except for small profit taking) in world and financing deposit interest obligations using other in world financial lines of business. This puts less downward pressure on the $L.

Umm, no you don't have that right. Consideration is not "given to"... once again, in contract law, consideration has a specific, and different meaning. It doesn't mean 'thinking of the other party' or similar, like the every day use of the word.

"Consideration is defined as a bargain for the exchange of something of value": ie the premium fee in exchange for the service.

A legal contract must have three things: and offer, and acceptance, and consideration.

I dont see the point of these messages. Either Linden Labs will honor its contract real or implied or not. There are other avenues of redress possible. Possibility through Pay Pay or your credit card company. We are not limited to redress through the American court system. Since I opened my account in Japan perhaps there can be some help going through my own goverment. I am still waiting to see the outcome of this issue. With a little luck Linden Labs will fullfill their contract eliminating Premium Stipends only at renewal time. Of course I will drop my account to basic.

We will have to wait...........

Yes, you're right. I guess it's just a matter of making something that can actually grow $L entirely in game then. Good luck with whatever you choose to do

That's because as always, you fail to both read and comprehend before you post.

Find their contract. If it doesn't explicitly say "$500L a week," and you agreed to it by giving them your subscription fee, then if they cut your stippends, you're screwed.

Ranma-

Doing business "in good faith" is an important aspect of contract law in the U.S. (you can look it up "good faith" in wikipedia if you like but the definition is some of the most arch-legal I've seen in the wikipedia).

So... can corporations with no physical presense in another nation be subjected to the laws in those nations?
How would your legal system enforce their decisions?

I'm speaking out of my hat here, I haven't any case examples one way or the other...

but "IF LL STOPS PREMIUM STIPENDS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SUBSCRIPTION PERIOD" (that being a doubly unrealistic event), I think you'd have to find an American lawyer to take the case, and have it tried in the state of California.

In that RATHER UNLIKELY EVENT... if LL can still show that they acted "in good faith", either by showing that stipends were above and beyond the paid for service, or by offering alternative compensation, or by offering and honoring pro-rated refunds for unused service, then it is likely they'll get away with it.

And aside from all that.. I still utterly fail to understand why anyone would bother with a premium account if they don't want to own land. It seems a penny wise and a pound foolish.

I think it's unlikely too. They didn't cut all basics' stipends, only those for people joining after the announcement. They'll honour their current agreements, there's no reason to go screaming but I have a contract!!! I'm sure they realise their obligations.

Whatever they do, I believe you will get what you paid for.

This is exactly my point though. In the present TOS, you aren't exchanging the premium fee (or any other fee) for the service, because according to the TOS you might not get the service and if you don't there's nothing you can do. (The same applies to EULAs.)

The question is basically this.. I have, let's say, a car you want to buy. I ask you to sign a contract that you'll pay me US$whatever. The contract doesn't say that I will give you the car, the contract doesn't say I have to do anything at all, in fact the contract says that you agree not to sue me if I don't give you the car. You sign the contract anyway and pay the money, but then, as it happens I do in fact give you the car. Does the contract still come under "lack of consideration", because even though you did actually get the car, the contract didn't specify you'd get it and the contract is judged alone independantly of what actually happened?

If the contract was simply, "I agree to give you $some_money" period, then no, it's not a contract. If it said "I agree to give you $some_money for the posibility of getting a car, with the knowledge that this $some_money may or may not actully result in the purchase of a car, and I understand that the person giving me the car is not liable in case of a loss of a car before I get it," then yes, it's a contract, because you are still paying for at least a posibility of a car. You'd be stupid to pay full car price for such a contract, and if a contract required full new car price and you paid, you COULD easilly claim insanity, and thus not being of clear mind and reason to sign the contract to begin with, which would make it void, but as it stands, it's a valid contract.