3 ms·

>by opening the shrink wrap, or clicking on some button or whatever the heck, you agree to those things. I don't see why anybody should take seriously the clai

by Retra 10y ago

>by opening the shrink wrap, or clicking on some button or whatever the heck, you agree to those things. I don't see why anybody should take seriously the claim that doing something so simple that it can be done accidentally and without reading/listening/or communicating anything at all should constitute an agreement to anything whatsoever. I wish people would stop telling me what I agree to and start telling me what they're willing to do if I violate their expectations, because that's what's actually intended by an EULA.

kazinator 10y ago
With regard to this specific situation, I have changed my mind. However, the validity of click-through agreements or implied agreement when you use something does seem valid. It's applied all over the place, so lawyers must have come up with it and have a rationale. Would you extend your reasoning to a signature? You can sign something without reading it. Perhaps not accidentally, though. I do now agree with you that simply using a program doesn't constitute agreement with its liability disclaimers, even if the license appears to require it as a grant condition. Or rather, that is probably irrelevant. > start telling me what they're willing to do if I violate their expectations This is not easy in the case of disclaimers. Ok, you're violating my expectations because you ran into some bug that cost you money and are suing me (whereas my expectations were that you would understand that the program is offered "as is"). Poor silly me! What do I do? Lose and pay up, I guess, if that disclaimer doesn't hold up. So basically, why bother. There isn't anything you can add to a license to increase the strength of any liability or warranty disclaiming text. Adding text like "using the program constitutes agreement with the disclaimer" serves no purpose.
Nomentatus 10y ago
Canadian courts have agreed in some cases, such as conditions that can't be accessed until a package is opened (this was some time ago, before software was commonly downloaded after purchase.) They have ruled such "contracts" unenforceable or illegal - I don't recall which.

by Retra 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago

With regard to this specific situation, I have changed my mind. However, the validity of click-through agreements or implied agreement when you use something does seem valid. It's applied all over the place, so lawyers must have come up with it and have a rationale. Would you extend your reasoning to a signature? You can sign something without reading it. Perhaps not accidentally, though. I do now agree with you that simply using a program doesn't constitute agreement with its liability disclaimers, even if the license appears to require it as a grant condition. Or rather, that is probably irrelevant. > start telling me what they're willing to do if I violate their expectations This is not easy in the case of disclaimers. Ok, you're violating my expectations because you ran into some bug that cost you money and are suing me (whereas my expectations were that you would understand that the program is offered "as is"). Poor silly me! What do I do? Lose and pay up, I guess, if that disclaimer doesn't hold up. So basically, why bother. There isn't anything you can add to a license to increase the strength of any liability or warranty disclaiming text. Adding text like "using the program constitutes agreement with the disclaimer" serves no purpose.

Nomentatus 10y ago

Canadian courts have agreed in some cases, such as conditions that can't be accessed until a package is opened (this was some time ago, before software was commonly downloaded after purchase.) They have ruled such "contracts" unenforceable or illegal - I don't recall which.