|
How many of you actually read them? Now, I only took one contract law class in college, but this seems VERY dubious to me:
XI.<deleted> may make changes to these terms at any time without notifying me. As a user, I am solely responsible for reading the most current version of the terms and conditions.
This cannot reasonably be considered a contract.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Where did you find that?
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and then I clicked "I do not agree".
And it's a site I won't go back to.
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
ooo, I've been googled.
I just wonder how many site owners (seriously, Armslist.com owners know web development?) just google for "stupid terms and conditions" and post it.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good trick. The ToC equivalent of a blank cheque.
Next month: XII. as a user, I agree to sacrifice my immortal soul to Lord Lucifer.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: as a user, I agree to sacrifice my immortal soul to Lord Lucifer. I think we'd all like to help users with that from time to time!
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: I agree to sacrifice my immortal soul to Lord Lucifer.
Ah, he's a Lord now just like Lord Sugar, eh? That's nice.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: as a user, I agree to sacrifice my immortal soul to Lord Lucifer. I plan to bury...
User will surrender First Born as well as any and all financial accounts including authorization upon demand.
in my EULA.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
I've tried to read a couple of times but ADD and lack of lawyerese prevent me from getting anything out of them.
I believe they make them that way so the average Joe won't take the time and they can pretty much do anything they want and you'll never know.
Now if they they were truthful this would be there Terms and COnditions;
We can do whatever we want, when we want without your knowledge or permission and if we don't like these terms we can change them anytime we want.
Now that I can understand!
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: We can do whatever we want, when we want without your knowledge or permission and if we don't like these terms we can change them anytime we want.
The problem I find with organizations that make changes to your TOC are the ones in which you have a substantial monetary and software investment. Like Apple with their 87 page contract. If I were to read the thing all the way through and found something I didn't like, am I expected to drop everything I have on my iPad/iPhone and start shelling out more money for apps on an Android just to avoid that one part I don't like?
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly and who's going to wade through 87 pages?, it's just ridiculous and they know you won't read it.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly with regards to employment contracts I read and try to understand every word, asking questions if I
don't.
One sunshine of a job had a section detailing how any training provided would have to be paid back if you left within a given time of having received the training, as well as needing to notify in advance of taking leave for the death of a close relative!
Generally my experience is that the contract can be a good indicator of the culture of a place - the more akin to the manifesto of a fascist party the more cautious you should be of accepting the contract/job.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
How about if we implant you with a rfid pdf reader
.'\ /`.
.'.-.`-'.-.`.
..._: .-. .-. :_...
.' '-.(o ) (o ).-' `.
: _ _ _`~(_)~`_ _ _ :
: /: ' .-=_ _=-. ` ;\ :
: :|-.._ ' ` _..-|: :
: `:| |`:-:-.-:-:'| |:' :
`. `.| | | | | | |.' .'
`. `-:_| | |_:-' .'
`-._ ```` _.-'
``-------'/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the first time I see the phrase, and it is not dubious, it is plain nonsense.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dubious contracts can always be overruled by a judge.
For example, I recently heard a story about a guy who left his job. His old contract stated he could not work for competitors for at least two years after resignation.
He needed a new job though, so he found work... For a competitor. I believe this was a good few months later.
Old employer sued, but the judge decided that the man needed a job and this was what he did for a living.
So there went the contract... (And rightfully so I think, two years is a looong time!).
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Especially when you are a grunt. I suppose if your are uber-senior it might be different.... but these "agreements" are a pile of hooey. Both sides of the contract / agreement have to have money involved. You want a no-compete for 2 years? Guess what sunshine, you agree to pay me 2 years salary.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
In the UK dubious contracts are automatically voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, non-compete clauses have to be written very carefully, and quite narrowly, to be enforceable. Courts will generally require that both the time and the extent of the prohibited employment be reasonable. Guidelines I have read suggest that a duration of more than about 6 months is likely to be enforced only in very unusual circumstances. Similarly, prohibiting employment in a substantially identical position for a direct competitor in the same immediate geographical area will probably stand up; prohibiting any employment in the same industry anywhere in the country certainly wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
The way terms and conditions are dealt with for software has made them virtually unenforceable, anyway -- the fact that major points are not made clear to buyers before they purchase software invalidates most of the cr@p that idiots add thinking "It's in the ToS, so it's LAW!"
There have been many, many cases where ridiculous terms have been declared unlawful by courts (you're not allowed to jailbreak your iphone, eh?).
The formula is something like this:
OverblownEgo + (LackOfLegalTraining AND/OR CompleteDisdainForCustomers) => PatheticallyUnenforceableTermsAndConditions
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Terms And Conditions - by reading this you are giving us permission to use brain-to-brain linkage to operate your eyes.
Tinfoil hat wearing may void warranty.
|
|
|
|
|
You should watch the documentary "Terms and conditions may apply" (currently on UK Netflix) - scary stuff...but fun when they doorstep Zuckerberg
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when buying my last house I signed a code, covenants, and restrictions agreement. Among the terms was the committee was responsible for maintaining common areas. After a year of waiting I started working on it. Ten years later the committee removed that covenant without asking me, then they came to me about a covenants restriction I wasn't obeying. I told them I'll continue paying the yearly dues even though our agreement became null and void the second they changed the agreement without getting me to sign the change of terms. They lost the right to tell me anything I have to do because of that agreement and we can let lawyers determine if I'm wrong or not. Never heard back from them about my "violation".
"Your" agreement seems like an agreement to let them build a back-door into your computer and make any change to any software they want without your knowledge or consent.
|
|
|
|
|
What constitutes a valid term depends not only on what you have agreed, but also on the legislation by the parliament and common law principles established by the court. ( Suppose it is within the common law world's jurisprudence ).
I think :
Generally the terms cannot be changed after the contract is formed, once there is change in terms one must communicate to another party. The later must agree in order to form a 'new contract' if the term is 'important'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd
modified 2-Sep-14 5:49am.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you and KP. What struck me was the brazen and obvious nonsense the wording represented. Almost an alien mindset to common sense.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|