3 ms·

It can only be parsed different ways under incompatible assumptions about whether PayPal is a payment method. If it actually is a payment method (as their lawy

It can only be parsed different ways under incompatible assumptions about whether PayPal is a payment method. If it actually is a payment method (as their lawyers undoubtedly take as a given), then it limits mischaracterization to aspects of PayPal that do not involve its character as a payment method. Only if you already believe it is somehow "not a payment method" does the other reading make any sense.

__s 10y ago
I also interpreted it as "PayPal is not a payment method" when reading. Legal statements shouldn't rely on out-of-contract context to parse
- guptaneil 10y ago
  IANAL, but it's not exactly "out-of-contract." The term "payment method" appears 49 times in the User Agreement[1]. Having said that, a quick skim suggests the term is used inconsistently. Sometimes it refers to PayPal as a payment method, other times it refers to the information you enter into PayPal (ie credit card, bank account, etc) as payment methods. This is because PayPal is both a payment method itself and a wrapper service for many payment methods. For example: Your PayPal balance, if you used your PayPal balance as the payment method or a bank account as the payment method, once the money clears the bank. So while it is confusing, I don't think you'd get very far with the "PayPal is not a payment method" interpretation. 1: https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.pdf https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.p...
  - droithomme 10y ago
    That is not correct. When one contracting party is in a superior position, courts consistently rule against the drafter of the agreement when there is ambiguous language. It's a long held legal principle taught in contract classes at law school.
    - eriknstr 10y ago
      Glad to hear that.
- arkades 10y ago
  They ordinarily don't. A normal contract - and most EULAs, even - include explicit definitions before a term is used repeatedly. e.g. The party receiving payment ("seller") shall... This one didn't.

__s 10y ago

I also interpreted it as "PayPal is not a payment method" when reading. Legal statements shouldn't rely on out-of-contract context to parse

guptaneil 10y ago
IANAL, but it's not exactly "out-of-contract." The term "payment method" appears 49 times in the User Agreement[1]. Having said that, a quick skim suggests the term is used inconsistently. Sometimes it refers to PayPal as a payment method, other times it refers to the information you enter into PayPal (ie credit card, bank account, etc) as payment methods. This is because PayPal is both a payment method itself and a wrapper service for many payment methods. For example: Your PayPal balance, if you used your PayPal balance as the payment method or a bank account as the payment method, once the money clears the bank. So while it is confusing, I don't think you'd get very far with the "PayPal is not a payment method" interpretation. 1: https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.pdf https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.p...
- droithomme 10y ago
  That is not correct. When one contracting party is in a superior position, courts consistently rule against the drafter of the agreement when there is ambiguous language. It's a long held legal principle taught in contract classes at law school.
  - eriknstr 10y ago
    Glad to hear that.
arkades 10y ago
They ordinarily don't. A normal contract - and most EULAs, even - include explicit definitions before a term is used repeatedly. e.g. The party receiving payment ("seller") shall... This one didn't.