3 ms·

> So I said, if you're comfortable with the clause meaning the interpretation earlier in chat, that it just means to follow directions about alcohol interaction

by papln 7y ago

> So I said, if you're comfortable with the clause meaning the interpretation earlier in chat, that it just means to follow directions about alcohol interactions with meds, then I'll sign, and he agreed. Did you document that modification in in writing or recording?

thrpythrwaway33 7y ago
All of this conversation was over their secure internet chat system, so it was logged that way.
- penagwin 7y ago
  You'll need a personal copy of that conversation if this were to come up. We don't know what their retention policy is, or if they'll mysteriously be unable to find it in a court case.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    The only court case I could imagine this coming up in is for malpractice, where op suffered serious consequences for drinking alcohol and sued bc he wasn't told not to drink. I don't think the above message chain would help him win his case.
    - penagwin 7y ago
      Yeah I figured there was relatively little legal risk here. I just wanted to point out that if your legal defense is the party at fault keeping support chat logs then you might want to rethink your legal defense :P
- gradys 7y ago
  IANAL, but I took a commerical law class in college. I feel like I remember there being a doctrine that if there's a written contract, agreements outside of the contract don't matter. (Which is not to say that verbal contracts aren't real contracts, but that if there's also a written contract, they overrule any unwritten agreements.)
  - bloak 7y ago
    Yes, but most of the things people are talking about here are not contracts, I think, so I don't think the doctrine you're referring to would be applicable. Compare these two situations: Situation 1. There is a single document with the title "CONTRACT" signed by both parties. It starts with a list of definitions and continues with a list of things that each party promises to do. Situation 2. There is a whole pile of documents to be signed by just one of the parties, the word "contract" is not mentioned, and most of the sentences in the documents give information (warning, disclaimer, whatever) rather than express some kind of obligation. Some kind of (implicit) contract may be created in situation 2, and the documents may have some bearing on it, but the documents are clearly not "the contract". It's more like signing to receive a parcel than signing a contract.
    - pfisch 7y ago
      It is absolutely a contract. This interpretation is just your personal opinion about how the world should work, and is not based at all in reality. These forms clearly meet the legal definition of a contract.
      - sjy 7y ago
        The purpose of a consent form is not usually to create a contract but to comply with a statute requiring written consent to be obtained.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      ... What are you basing that on? In Canada at least that would absolutely be a contract. We must be very careful not to confuse "common sense" or "obvious" or "that's what it intuitively means to me" with "law". Lots of people do that and lots of them pay the price :-(
  - gnopgnip 7y ago
    Agreements over an electronic messaging system are written agreements, and satisfy the statute of frauds, and are not automatically superseeded. Even if you have a written contract that has boilerplate language saying all future modifications need to be in writing, courts have enforced verbal modifications. A contract can always be modified, what matters is if both parties agree.

by papln 7y ago

thrpythrwaway33 7y ago

All of this conversation was over their secure internet chat system, so it was logged that way.

penagwin 7y ago
You'll need a personal copy of that conversation if this were to come up. We don't know what their retention policy is, or if they'll mysteriously be unable to find it in a court case.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  The only court case I could imagine this coming up in is for malpractice, where op suffered serious consequences for drinking alcohol and sued bc he wasn't told not to drink. I don't think the above message chain would help him win his case.
  - penagwin 7y ago
    Yeah I figured there was relatively little legal risk here. I just wanted to point out that if your legal defense is the party at fault keeping support chat logs then you might want to rethink your legal defense :P
gradys 7y ago
IANAL, but I took a commerical law class in college. I feel like I remember there being a doctrine that if there's a written contract, agreements outside of the contract don't matter. (Which is not to say that verbal contracts aren't real contracts, but that if there's also a written contract, they overrule any unwritten agreements.)
- bloak 7y ago
  Yes, but most of the things people are talking about here are not contracts, I think, so I don't think the doctrine you're referring to would be applicable. Compare these two situations: Situation 1. There is a single document with the title "CONTRACT" signed by both parties. It starts with a list of definitions and continues with a list of things that each party promises to do. Situation 2. There is a whole pile of documents to be signed by just one of the parties, the word "contract" is not mentioned, and most of the sentences in the documents give information (warning, disclaimer, whatever) rather than express some kind of obligation. Some kind of (implicit) contract may be created in situation 2, and the documents may have some bearing on it, but the documents are clearly not "the contract". It's more like signing to receive a parcel than signing a contract.
  - pfisch 7y ago
    It is absolutely a contract. This interpretation is just your personal opinion about how the world should work, and is not based at all in reality. These forms clearly meet the legal definition of a contract.
    - sjy 7y ago
      The purpose of a consent form is not usually to create a contract but to comply with a statute requiring written consent to be obtained.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    ... What are you basing that on? In Canada at least that would absolutely be a contract. We must be very careful not to confuse "common sense" or "obvious" or "that's what it intuitively means to me" with "law". Lots of people do that and lots of them pay the price :-(
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  Agreements over an electronic messaging system are written agreements, and satisfy the statute of frauds, and are not automatically superseeded. Even if you have a written contract that has boilerplate language saying all future modifications need to be in writing, courts have enforced verbal modifications. A contract can always be modified, what matters is if both parties agree.