This is a typical HN comment. People here always seem to think that laws in contracts are like code, with strict rules and consequences. It was ruled that his

This is a typical HN comment. People here always seem to think that laws in contracts are like code, with strict rules and consequences. It was ruled that his use was fraudulent, so it was, that's the end of it. You cannot use a contract like a strict rule, bend it in the "ambiguous zone" and think nothing will happen. Contracts are broken all the time. He may have respected the letter of the contract, but not the spirit, and that is enough to end the contract without compensation. Similar cases happen very frequently. I remember a case of somebody using his unlimited internet access to run a server, and getting his contract canceled because his use was comparable to a business use, even if the server was not part of any business and the internet subscription never explicitly prevented such use.