2 ms·
Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be boun
by TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted it if you do something that you might have done normally.
- dahart 9y ago> Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia says "sometimes". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#E... > Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted Again, not a lawyer, but I imagine that use of a service could legally constitute your active end of the communication. You're right, you can't be bound just because someone says, but when you use a service you've gone one step past. Honestly, I think the EULA is more of a CYA for them than a contract, in practice. But it does establish the potential legality for two things: 1- that this is a licensed service, and 2- that they can refuse service to anyone they want for reasons of business interest.
- staticautomatic 9y agoI just had a conversation with my own company's lawyers about this recently. Their assessment was that the spectrum from something like what LinkedIn is doing to something like a notarized paper document with a wet signature is a trade-off between ease/simplicity and enforceability. These kinds of agreement ostensibly are enforceable, but harder to enforce.