<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2-ppt DokuWiki" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://leftleftupup.com/lib/exe/css.php?s=feed" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>Left Left Up Up tech law wiki - games, law, technology, virtual communities and more!</title>
        <description></description>
        <link>http://leftleftupup.com/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:20:02 -0500</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2-ppt DokuWiki</generator>
        
        <item>
            <title>Left Left Up Up technology law wiki wiki</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/home</link>
            <description>Left Left Up Up technology law wiki wiki


Left Left Up Up is a technology law wiki for research in and around games, technology, law, virtual worlds, and virtual communities. 

Initially created by Nic Suzor. If  you think this could be a useful tool for your own research or interest, please help us grow it!</description>
            <author>nic</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:33:46 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Estoppel by failing to enforce the rules - created</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/analysis/estoppel_by_failing_to_enforce_the_rules</link>
            <description>Analysis,
	eula,
	tos,
	virtual worlds,
	virtual communities,
	estoppel,
	enforce,
	rules




Where the proprietor of a virtual community generally fails to enforce the rules, could it be estopped from doing so in any particular instance? 

Despite a clear contractual right to terminate, a provider may be estopped from terminating in circumstances where it would be unconscionable to do so. In order to prevent the provider from terminating, a participant would have to show that the provider had r…</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>analysis</category>
        <category>eula</category>
        <category>tos</category>
        <category>virtual_worlds</category>
        <category>virtual_communities</category>
        <category>estoppel</category>
        <category>enforce</category>
        <category>rules</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:53:07 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>wiki:user:nic:scratch</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/wiki/user/nic/scratch</link>
            <description>Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394

Estoppel by failing to enforce the rules</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>wiki:user:nic</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:52:44 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Election and affirmation of breaches of EULA or ToS in subscription environments</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/analysis/election_and_affirmation_of_breaches_of_virtual_world_contracts</link>
            <description>Analysis,
	eula,
	terms,
	election,
	affirmation,
	contract




It is common practice for the EULAs and ToSs written by providers of virtual worlds to prohibit a broad range of conduct, but to only rarely enforce those prohibitions as written. Could it be possible that by failing to enforce, the provider could be prevented from exercising the right to terminate for breach? For example, if the ToS prohibits rmt, but the provider knows that everyone engages in RMT and generally turns a blind eye, …</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>analysis</category>
        <category>eula</category>
        <category>terms</category>
        <category>election</category>
        <category>affirmation</category>
        <category>contract</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 16:46:48 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/cases/renard_constructions_me_pty_ltd_v_minister_for_public_works_1992_26_nswlr_234</link>
            <description>case law,
	contract,
	construction,
	implied,
	term,
	duty,
	good faith

Court: NSW Court of Appeal

Judges: Priestley JA, Meagher JA and Handley JA

Date decided: 12 March 1992

This case is considered to have started the development of good faith in Australian contract law. The implication of good faith is a controversial topic, and is far from settled.</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>case_law</category>
        <category>contract</category>
        <category>construction</category>
        <category>implied</category>
        <category>term</category>
        <category>duty</category>
        <category>good_faith</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:20:18 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Vodafone Pacific Ltd &amp; v Mobile Innovations Ltd [2004] NSWCA 15 (unreported, 20 February 2004)</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/cases/vodafone_pacific_ltd_v_mobile_innovations_ltd_2004_nswca_15</link>
            <description>case law,
	good faith,
	contract

Court: New South Wales Court of Appeal

Judges: Sheller, Giles, Ipp JJA 

Date decided: 20 February 2004


Vodafone was a carrier, and Mobile innovations resold Vodafone services. Pursuant to the contract, Vodafone was required to determine the number of new subscribers it would provide to Mobile to manage:</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>case_law</category>
        <category>good_faith</category>
        <category>contract</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:05:57 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>lluu:edit</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/lluu/edit</link>
            <description>By editing this page, you agree to license
your material under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (Australia) 2.5 and a GNU Free Documentation License. These are irrevocable licences which allow anyone to copy, modify, and distribute your work. See Copyright for details.</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>lluu</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:59:21 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Autodesk v Dyason (1992) 173 CLR 330</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/cases/autodesk_v_dyason_1992_173_clr_330</link>
            <description>case law,
	computer program,
	hardware program,
	indirect copying



Court: High Court of Australia

Judges:

Date decided:

Facts


Autodesk created and distributed the AutoCAD package, which included a hardware dongle to avoid piracy. Widget C is a program distributed with the AutoCAD package, which periodically challenges the hardware lock. If the hardware lock returns the correct response, AutoCAD was allowed to continue to run. Dyason, using an oscilloscope to examine the responses of the A…</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>case_law</category>
        <category>computer_program</category>
        <category>hardware_program</category>
        <category>indirect_copying</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:51:02 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/cases/commonwealth_v_verwayen_1990_170_clr_394</link>
            <description>case law,
	estoppel,
	waiver,
	negligence





Court: High Court of Australia

Judges: Deane J, Dawson J, Toohey J, Gaudron J; Mason CJ, Brennan J, McHugh J dissenting.

Date decided: 05 September 1990


In an exercise, the destroyer HMAS Voyager sailed under the bow of the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, and was cut in two and sunk; 82 sailors were killed. Verwayen, a sailor in the Royal Australian Navy, was injured when the two warships collided in 1964. He sued the Commonwealth for negligenc…</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>case_law</category>
        <category>estoppel</category>
        <category>waiver</category>
        <category>negligence</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:35:03 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>incorporation</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/tag/incorporation</link>
            <description>incorporation


Articles that consider the incorporation of contractual terms. These are particularly important for end user licence agreements; not all terms which are written or said will necessarily form part of the contract.

You can add this tag to existing pages with the format {{tags&gt;incorporation}}.</description>
        <category>tag</category>
            <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:49:09 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 - created</title>
            <link>http://leftleftupup.com/cases/alcatel_australia_ltd_v_scarcella_1998_44_nswlr_349</link>
            <description>case law,
	contract,
	lease,
	implied,
	duty,
	good faith

Court: New South Wales Court of Appeal

Judges: Sheller JA, Powell JA, Beazley JA

Date decided: 16 July 1998


There was a covenant in a building lease to keep the building in “good and substantial repair”. Windeyer J, at first instance, found that the phrase had both a qualitative (good) and quantitative (substantial) meaning. The appellant argued that the phrase meant “substantially good repair”. The Court of Appeal upheld Windeyer J'…</description>
            <author>nic</author>
        <category>case_law</category>
        <category>contract</category>
        <category>lease</category>
        <category>implied</category>
        <category>duty</category>
        <category>good_faith</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:28:39 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
