Breach of Contract

[Quaere]

What is the name of your state? California

I own a net forum and have a comprehensive TOS agreement with those who post on the forum. For the most part, I allow users to ignore the posting guidelines. I simply reserve the right to enforce the rules when it suits me to do so.

I consider the TOS a binding “contract” with my users.

Is the contract any less binding, because I only enforce the terms when I want to? Am I breaching the contract myself by failing to hold each user to the same terms?

Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? California

I own a net forum and have a comprehensive TOS agreement with those who post on the forum. For the most part, I allow users to ignore the posting guidelines. I simply reserve the right to enforce the rules when it suits me to do so.

I consider the TOS a binding “contract” with my users.

Is the contract any less binding, because I only enforce the terms when I want to? Am I breaching the contract myself by failing to hold each user to the same terms?

Thanks in advance for any insight!

If I were defending a user in a lawsuit you brought, I would use the above facts to show why the TOS is a POS.

 

[Quaere]

If I were defending a user in a lawsuit you brought, I would use the above facts to show why the TOS is a POS.

Hmmm. POS = Point of Service? Pile of S...?

I'm guessing you meant the latter. sigh

So then, I can't really expect the users of my site to anticipate my whims? I can't single out certain individuals and hold them to a different standard than everyone else just because I want to? FOOEY!

 

[You Are Guilty]

C'mon, you know better than that. Ignoring all the bigger issues, selective enforcement is never a defense.

And by this post, I take it you weren't the one who locked your earlier one, huh?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? California

I consider the TOS a binding “contract” with my users.

THis is your mind after waaaay too much wacky weed

 

[You Are Guilty]

THis is your mind after waaaay too much wacky weed

Hey, welcome back.

Anyway, he doesn't have his own forum - go look up the last thread he started for the background to this one.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Hey, welcome back.

Thank you sir. Old girlfriends really take it out of you.

Anyway, he doesn't have his own forum - go look up the last thread he started for the background to this one.

Do I really really really have to????

 

[Quaere]

YAG wrote: C'mon, you know better than that. Ignoring all the bigger issues, selective enforcement is never a defense.

I sure thought I knew better than that but then I saw some stuff here that made me wonder if I really know what I think I know! I’m becoming very confused.

I guess selective enforcement would not be a defense in itself, but my defendants may be able to use my inconsistent moderation to show they had no way of knowing what I consider a “violation” of the TOS.

And by this post, I take it you weren't the one who locked your earlier one, huh?

No, I didn’t lock it and I was wondering how and why that happened!

BB wrote: THis is your mind after waaaay too much wacky weed

Whaddya mean? You don’t even think it’s a valid contract?

YAG wrote: Anyway, he doesn't have his own forum –

Your assumption regarding my interests here are correct, but for the record, I do own and moderate two of my own forums and I serve as moderator on two other forums.

I am riveted by a recently filed lawsuit that involves questions about the rights of forum owners. I am also more than a little disturbed by the publicity the lawsuit is getting.

Most people will never know how the recent suit concludes. They will only remember that somebody got sued for violating a TOS. People are going to get the wrong idea.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Publicity? I haven't read about it in any law journal, did I miss one?

But given the popularity of the internet, it's only a matter of time until contract law that was created 200 years ago moves into the 21st century. So I suspect that, maybe not now, but soon enough, we'll see cases upholding a "breach of TOS" claim. (And Civil Rules amended to permit "nail & email" service).