4 ms·

Them 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

Them 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 ago
my 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    I 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.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      That makes sense, and it's kind of a moot point, right; either way, Blockbuster isn't in a strong position to enforce a fine, and can simply refuse to rent to you again.
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        Right, but then they'll hit your credit report, and you'll have to spend far more time than it's worth (at the least) to fix it.
- AlexMuir 16y ago
  Was this at bpp?
  - flipbrad 16y ago
    spot on! small world...
tptacek 16y ago
Again (see below) I'd worry that you haven't so much "secured agreement" by waiting out the first paycheck so much as you have "obtained employment without actually having a valid contract at all", which might cut both ways. At any point that the company chooses to ensure you're in compliance with its IP terms, it can just demand you sign another contract. Employment in the US is almost entirely at-will.
- aristus 16y ago
  That is what happened to me at a couple of previous jobs. At one I blacked out some clauses. At another they forgot to get me some contract or another, and I wasn't going to remind them. In both cases someone noticed a long time later during a paperwork audit and I had to do it over.

flipbrad 16y ago

my 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 ago
This 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 ago
  I 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.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    That makes sense, and it's kind of a moot point, right; either way, Blockbuster isn't in a strong position to enforce a fine, and can simply refuse to rent to you again.
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      Right, but then they'll hit your credit report, and you'll have to spend far more time than it's worth (at the least) to fix it.
AlexMuir 16y ago
Was this at bpp?
- flipbrad 16y ago
  spot on! small world...

tptacek 16y ago

Again (see below) I'd worry that you haven't so much "secured agreement" by waiting out the first paycheck so much as you have "obtained employment without actually having a valid contract at all", which might cut both ways. At any point that the company chooses to ensure you're in compliance with its IP terms, it can just demand you sign another contract. Employment in the US is almost entirely at-will.

aristus 16y ago
That is what happened to me at a couple of previous jobs. At one I blacked out some clauses. At another they forgot to get me some contract or another, and I wasn't going to remind them. In both cases someone noticed a long time later during a paperwork audit and I had to do it over.