Wake Up Smell The Coffee

But the problem with this is, if I did not give you the car, as far as I could see, you could sue me claiming that you never even had the possibility of getting the car (in which case the contract is void so any of my disclaimers are void too). How I can I then legally prove that I might have given you the car but didn't?

There are things that a goverment can do to protect it nationals from being defrauded. Yes there is a course of action open to the goverment of Japan.

If you can prove that I never had the posibility of giving you a car, then yes, that would be illegal, since it would essentially be me lying to you in the contract and swindling you out of money. If, however, I can prove to the court by showing them documents of the proof that, say, I had a credit card with a $15,000 limit which I intended to use to buy you your car, or, even more flaky, had an investment in a stock that I honestly believed based on shown prospectuses would skyrocket and would go high enough to be able to buy you that car, but, during the time of the contract my credit card account was lost (bankruptsy, card stolen, or account just closed for no reason), or the stock didn't pan out, then it's still a valid contract. You paid for the risk. If the risk is explicitly stated in the contract, or, in LL's case the "risk" is simply an extra bonus that is omited in the contract (no mention of stippends), then it's still a valid contract, even if you fail to receive what you hoped for. You received the right to the risk with the possibility (not guarantee) of a gain. That's all your contract was for in that case. But this all is getting a bit too convoluted and on quite a hell of a tangent from the original discussion, isn't it?

I so agree with you. We will have to wait and see what happens next. There is no sense in getting upset until and if the deed gets done.

What the TOS states is that you are buying SL "as is". If you're buying a car "as is" you agree that the seller has no obligation if the car breaks down. While many states have "lemon laws" and other regulations to keep sellers from knowingly selling cars that are not road worthy, if you buy a car "as is" and it breaks down due to wear and tear, you cannot get your money back.

The TOS says that if SL should break down, we do not get money for the time it was out. This is standard because servers, networks, et break down from time to time. And many companies will restrict access to servers in order to maintain them.

The pages that explain the terms of premium accounts, free accounts, et constitute a contract. And so do any pages that advertise the benefits of signing on. An advertisement is a contract. Once the buyer accepts the contract, the seller has an obligation to deliver. If LL advertised SL premium accounts as "if the network breaks down, your money back", then they would have to refund paying accounts for the time lost when the servers go down even if the TOS says different. But LL doesn't advertise that. They advertise two benefits of premium accounts, 512k parcel and 500L stipend. By advertising it, they have entered into a contract with anyone who accepts it. Breaking the contract invokes both breach of contract laws and false advertisement laws.

I'm very curious! What kinds of things are you thinking of that would be relevant in a case like this?

You will just have to be patience and wait. Unless Linden Labs defrauds its Nippon Premium Customers, I do not see any action happening. Patience young one, the strong ones are the patience ones. It is up to Linden Labs to do or not do something. All we can do is sit back and wait.

... and read forums... and make posts about how none of this affects us... unless it does, in which case we'll sue...

Ok Rasah, you just gave me a great idea but I'm giving you credit in case it backfires. Let's set up a civil court in SL where residents can sue each other. LL can charge fees for filing these suits while we can hire/pay judges and lawyers to adjudicate them. There must be dozens of people who want to sue Jamie Bergman.

Even better. We charge the fee in $L and burn those lawyer fees as a sink

Ranma-

I was (politely) calling your bluff. But since you're trying to evade answering... (and implying I'm an impatient youngster)... I'll be more direct.

You threatened vague legal consequences against Linden Lab.
(if they kill stipends without sufficient advanced notice).

Either your vague legal retaliation has teeth... and can persuade LL to do the right thing.... or it is merely useless posturing.

If you really think you have legal recourse above and beyond what U.S. and California law... and somehow it's relevant to this hypothetical situation... I, for one, would very much like to learn more about it.

Or... were you just bluffing?

I just want to wait and see what happens. Any recourse of the government of Japan is not required at this time. The first step would be to seek from Linden Labs a partial refund of the remaining amount. Then to file a claim with the City of San Francisco or State of California. You are correct the amount of money is very small for the individual residents. It would make a good group action lawsuit.

I would like to think that Linden Labs will not stop stipends of Premium members during the paid period. Probably one day a notice will appear in the forums and maybe on login about how there will be no stipends for new or renewing Premium members. Either you accept the new terms of service or not get renewed or a new account.

I do not see Linden Labs imposing the stipend cut on premium members during their contract period. Even if they can get away with it will send the wrong signals to its users. They have a lot more to lose than any possible gain. What will they loose? Well any trust in the firm to complete its obligations. Why invest money or pay a membership fee if Linden Labs can just void the agreement?