If PSP would simply apply the high roller policy to new affiliates only -- like Roxy Affiliates is doing with their high roller policy -- then I think most people would be happy. PSP wouldn't be breaching any contracts, existing affiliates wouldn't feel like they had been slapped in the face, and we could all get back to work.
Our terms have always contained the clause stating that “PlayShare Partners reserves the right to amend,
alter, delete or add to any of the provisions of this Agreement, at any time and at its sole discretion,
without advance notice to you”. Although comments about this statement’s validity have been made on
5
various forums recently, we have never received a complaint or query about it. Nevertheless, we will be
happy to commit to informing affiliates of any future changes to the terms and conditions via e-mail and
the PSP website.
Originally Posted by Dominique
To change a contract both parties have to be in agreement.
Ninth Circuit: Without Notice Customer Not Bound by Changes in Internet Contract
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Douglas v. Talk America, Inc. which vacates an order compelling arbitration pursuant to an Internet contract. The plaintiff, Joe Douglas, contracted for long distance telephone service with America Online. This business was subsequently acquired by the defendant, Talk America, who added four provisions to Douglas’s existing service contract; one of these new provisions was an arbitration clause. Though Talk America posted the revised contract on its website, it never notified Douglas that the contract had changed. Unaware of the new contract provisions, Douglas continued to use Talk America’s services for four years.
When Douglas filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Talk America moved to compel arbitration based on the modified contract. The district court granted the motion and Douglas sought review of that decision.
On review, the Ninth Circuit relied upon well-settled contract law principles. No express contract can be formed without the assent of the party to be bound. It follows, then, that a party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract; the consent of the other party is required. Talk America could not hold Douglas to a contractual provision of which he had no actual notice, even though the revised contract was posted on Talk America’s website.
This case reinforces the fact that traditional contract principles apply even to Internet contracts. To form an enforceable Internet contract, a website user must be required to take some affirmative action indicating his assent to the terms of the contract. Whenever the terms of the contract change, the website user should be notified of the change and be required to take an additional affirmative action indicating his assent to the revised terms. Otherwise, the party seeking to enforce the Internet contract may have difficulty demonstrating which version of the contract, if any, governs the rights and obligations of the parties.
If you look at many online terms of service, they reserve the right to change the terms at any time. Some force you to re-agree to the terms -- but others don't. In the past, courts have ruled that if someone didn't agree to the changed terms, the new terms could be found to be unenforceable, but a recent decision has gone much further, effectively saying that the entire terms of service are void if they claim they can be changed at any time. Sent in by Blake, the ruling said that Blockbuster's online terms of service were "illusory" and unenforceable because it included a clause saying it could change the terms at any time. So, even though the term it was trying to enforce was in the terms that the person agreed to, the court found the entire terms unenforceable. This is quite a ruling that could have a pretty major impact on any online service that has terms that insist they can change at any time. While it's just a district court ruling and may be reversed on appeal, it's something anyone running an online service should pay attention to.
It looks like we're getting the silent treatment again. Nice.
It looks like we're getting the silent treatment again. Nice.
It appears that adding 'we can chage the terms anytime.." jeopardizes the terms of service altogether.
From looking around there is also International Law and Juristiction challenges but all in all more are coming up these days and quite doable.
some kind of response .
Bonustreak: Hey guys let's cut Lawrence a break he has been home with his sick kids all week