Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Federal Judge Rules Online Contracts "Illusory" and "Unenforceable"
 
#4
Epsilon: how do you figure?

I cannot see any reasonable need for a business -- online or off -- to reserve the right to unilaterally change its contract -- notice posted or sent to the
other party or not. In fact, I would argue that the very idea is against the whole concept of a binding contract. It's asinine. And business can thrive
-- and has -- without that particular clause.

The key point under contention, as I see it, is the contract -- not whatever the contract was about (in this case video rental history, it appears). One could
argue -- and would be correct, I'd say -- that if you don't like the "you can't sue us" clause, you shouldn't agree to the contract
with them in the first place. But regardless, once a contract is established it should only be changeable under clearly defined terms -- and these are not.

I can't see how this would hurt legitimate online business, and in fact I would argue that after the fallout is over it may very well help it.

(Aside: I seem to recall a cell phone company trying this particular trick once -- the one-sided "suck it, customer" contract -- and getting spanked
for it, but my Google-fu is weak and I can't remember details. Anyone?)

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
Reply


Messages In This Thread
[No subject] - by Wiregeek - 04-22-2009, 07:34 PM
[No subject] - by Epsilon - 04-22-2009, 09:05 PM
[No subject] - by Sofaspud - 04-22-2009, 09:31 PM
[No subject] - by Epsilon - 04-22-2009, 10:07 PM
[No subject] - by Wiregeek - 04-22-2009, 10:57 PM
[No subject] - by Sofaspud - 04-23-2009, 12:14 AM
[No subject] - by CattyNebulart - 04-23-2009, 01:33 AM
[No subject] - by Bob Schroeck - 04-23-2009, 06:47 PM
[No subject] - by khagler - 04-23-2009, 07:26 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)