Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
It will also have huge negative consequences on a lot of legitimate online businesses.
-----------------
Epsilon
Posts: 1,449
Threads: 137
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 1,449
Threads: 137
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
(Wire: with rusty sporks!)
I doubt there's any idea in anyone's mind that online contracts themselves are in danger from this. As presented in the linked article, it seems
pretty clear to me the judge's complaint is with the specific clauses of this contract, and possibly by extension other contracts containing fundamentally
similar clauses, but not the idea of online contracts overall. Regardless of what the title of the article might imply.
If the headline were the only thing to go by, I could see that interpretation. But as-is, it seems ... unlikely.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
CattyNebulart
Unregistered
This result shouldn't have been surprising, a few years ago a US court struck down a similar rule in a singed paper contract. The courts point in that case
was also that if one party can change it unilaterally it's not a contract. Don't remember the case though.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I'm sure the entire software industry is incredibly pissed off at Blockbuster right now. They've been very careful to avoid letting any case involving
their bogus "license agreements" get near a courtroom for many years, only to see it get blown by a video store. :-)
