4 ms·
[Since reddit is under severe load, here's the actual text...] ZorbaTHut 319 points 1 day ago > A contract is a two-way agreement, so if you see terms in ther
by aaronsw 16y ago
[Since reddit is under severe load, here's the actual text...]
ZorbaTHut 319 points 1 day ago
> A contract is a two-way agreement, so if you see terms in there that you're uncomfortable about, you can black them out.
This isn't even a housing thing, this is just a global thing. I don't think I've ever signed an employment contract without modifying it. I've never had my employer mention it afterwards.
Excessive non-compete clause? Bam, gone. Clause that conflicts with a verbal agreement I had with the producer? Bam, gone. Cross out some bits, write notes in the margin, make little arrows pointing at what you crossed out with your initials, sign it, photocopy it, turn it in with your employment paperwork, keep the photocopy.
"Your Honor, our ex-employee should go to ultrajail for breaching our horrifying non-compete clause, and also owes us a billion dollars for Section 7 of his employment paperwork."
"I never agreed to that. Here's what I signed."
"Well, fuck."
[And then this reply seems very helpful...]
OriginalStomper 157 points 6 hours ago
I am a lawyer familiar with contract law, though not an employment lawyer. You and sporkus are both correct (at least under Texas law and most other US jurisdictions): it is not a binding contract until both parties agree to all the changes.
Until the original agrees (by initialing the changes or at least signing the agreement after your changes are made), the marked-up document is merely a counter-offer. However, that means the employer has nothing to enforce against you. Texas is an "employment at will" state, and here 99% of the time an employment contract was the employer's idea, for the employer's purposes, with little or no actual benefit to the employee. The employee usually comes out ahead if the entire contract is unenforceable, or even if just the harshest clauses are deleted.
Protip: while you are at it, also delete arbitration clauses. Completely and whenever possible. The individual/employee will almost never win in arbitration, unless the arbitration is conducted under a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a union. If there's even the hint of an arbitration clause in your contract (ANY kind of contract, not just employment contracts), then it does not matter how well you edited the rest of the agreement, because arbitrators are free to be arbitrary. They are not legally required to follow the contract -- they can do whatever they think is "fair." Strangely enough, "fair" will almost always favor the employer or other repeat customer for the arbitrator. Because, see, the arbitrators are in the business of arbitrating disputes. If no one chooses them to arbitrate, then they have to find a real job.
- boredguy8 16y agoThem paying you after your modifications is sufficient (in most cases) to constitute agreement. "Meeting of the minds" is not really a legal practice today. The employer was objectively given notification of the modifications and objectively paid the employee, constituting acceptance of the agreement. Obviously no such case is open-and-close, but the modifications are probably on fairly solid ground.
- flipbrad 16y agomy Tort tutor (admittedly not a contract tutor, but...) boasted to the class about signing up for a blockbuster video rental card, handing in a signed T&Cs slip instore with the late fees clause blacked out. The acceptance of the slip (putting it in a drawer) made that the contract; then commencement of trade between the parties evidenced it. How he laughed, he says, when they pulled out his file to wave it at him, trying to get him to pay a fine.
- tptacek 16y agoThis doesn't sound credible. It's based on the idea that a clerk at Blockbuster can accept changes to contract language. A similar story could go, "my Tort tutor added language to the rental contract that demanded Blockbuster pay me $100 every time I didn't like a movie; how he laughed, he said, when he demanded his payment after renting Marmaduke". I'm obviously not a lawyer but this seems to have more to do with there being no valid contract to enforce than about him secretly modifying the language of the contract.
- boredguy8 16y agoI explain the difference below: "You couldn't sneak in a clause saying 'I get a 100% pay increase annually' -- in this case, they're the party being bound so would need some indication of assent beyond just a paycheck." Similarly, the clause you identify means that Blockbuster is now the party that is bound. Renting you a movie with that clause isn't sufficient proof of acceptance, especially because there's no consideration that Blockbuster receives in return.