5 ms·

Usually there is a few lines at the end stating that wherever this is illegal, these parts are not binding. (Or something more legalese ofcourse)

by Moru 6y ago

davvolun 6y ago
That's kind of the thing though. > Signer agrees to become contract murderer unless pre-empted by local laws and regulations. I'm over-exaggerating, and I get the value when it's prohibitively expensive to write a TOS when it's essentially impossible to pre-emptively vet the legality of all possible clauses internationally as laws constantly change. But if the clause I wrote is technically valid, then what's the point? Just write a short phrase saying "We're going to do whatever we like, unless it's prohibited by law. Accept? Y/N"
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The TOS is about what you can do, not what the company can do.
  - buckminster 6y ago
    This is pedantically true, but the TOS are usually bundled with other agreements that purport to give the company permission to do things.
  - danarmak 6y ago
    "We'll do whatever we like, and you're not allowed to do anything, except as required by applicable law".
bigwavedave 6y ago
> Usually there is a few lines at the end stating that wherever this is illegal, these parts are not binding Personally, this is what I detest the most. There's always a bit in the boilerplate that's akin to "you agree to everything here, even the unenforceable bits. If we're ever challenged on the unenforceable parts after the fact, you still agree to be bound by everything else here." IA[very_much]NAL, but to me this always sounds like "We can and will stick whatever nonsense we want in this contract, whether the terms are illegal or not, and you will be bound by them for as long as we can get away with it. If you do ever discover the illegal bits, that doesn't void anything else (including any other illegal bits you haven't found yet!) and you can't sue us- you've given up that right and can only use a mediator from our approved list. May the odds be ever in your favor."
- ska 6y ago
  severability is actually a really important and broad legal concept (IANAL). I can where you get to [the view you espouse above] but if you think a bit about it you'll realize that contract law would become pretty unworkable without it. If every clause and statement has to be perfect or the whole thing evaporates, it would be hard to get anything done. And even if it were ok today, legislative changes tomorrow could inadvertently nuke a bunch of contracts. This is separable from the abusive nature of ToS of course.
  - bigwavedave 6y ago
    This is a fair point; it makes good sense and I'm glad you delineated ToS abuse and the spirit of the law!
  - CamJN 6y ago
    > legislative changes tomorrow could inadvertently nuke a bunch of contracts That sounds like a good thing? Why should abusive illegal contracts be allowed to continue after the law has found them to be unacceptable?
    - ska 6y ago
      I think you missed "inadvertently". It's one thing if the legislation is specifically targeting those contracts, quite another if the unintended consequence is much broader than you intend. It's easy enough to imagine legislators unintentionally invalidating basically all of a states employment contracts this way, for example.

Usually there is a few lines at the end stating that wherever this is illegal, these parts are not binding. (Or something more legalese ofcourse)

by Moru 6y ago

Usually there is a few lines at the end stating that wherever this is illegal, these parts are not binding. (Or something more legalese ofcourse)

davvolun 6y ago

That's kind of the thing though. > Signer agrees to become contract murderer unless pre-empted by local laws and regulations. I'm over-exaggerating, and I get the value when it's prohibitively expensive to write a TOS when it's essentially impossible to pre-emptively vet the legality of all possible clauses internationally as laws constantly change. But if the clause I wrote is technically valid, then what's the point? Just write a short phrase saying "We're going to do whatever we like, unless it's prohibited by law. Accept? Y/N"

alisonkisk 6y ago
The TOS is about what you can do, not what the company can do.
- buckminster 6y ago
  This is pedantically true, but the TOS are usually bundled with other agreements that purport to give the company permission to do things.
- danarmak 6y ago
  "We'll do whatever we like, and you're not allowed to do anything, except as required by applicable law".

bigwavedave 6y ago

> Usually there is a few lines at the end stating that wherever this is illegal, these parts are not binding Personally, this is what I detest the most. There's always a bit in the boilerplate that's akin to "you agree to everything here, even the unenforceable bits. If we're ever challenged on the unenforceable parts after the fact, you still agree to be bound by everything else here." IA[very_much]NAL, but to me this always sounds like "We can and will stick whatever nonsense we want in this contract, whether the terms are illegal or not, and you will be bound by them for as long as we can get away with it. If you do ever discover the illegal bits, that doesn't void anything else (including any other illegal bits you haven't found yet!) and you can't sue us- you've given up that right and can only use a mediator from our approved list. May the odds be ever in your favor."

ska 6y ago
severability is actually a really important and broad legal concept (IANAL). I can where you get to [the view you espouse above] but if you think a bit about it you'll realize that contract law would become pretty unworkable without it. If every clause and statement has to be perfect or the whole thing evaporates, it would be hard to get anything done. And even if it were ok today, legislative changes tomorrow could inadvertently nuke a bunch of contracts. This is separable from the abusive nature of ToS of course.
- bigwavedave 6y ago
  This is a fair point; it makes good sense and I'm glad you delineated ToS abuse and the spirit of the law!
- CamJN 6y ago
  > legislative changes tomorrow could inadvertently nuke a bunch of contracts That sounds like a good thing? Why should abusive illegal contracts be allowed to continue after the law has found them to be unacceptable?
  - ska 6y ago
    I think you missed "inadvertently". It's one thing if the legislation is specifically targeting those contracts, quite another if the unintended consequence is much broader than you intend. It's easy enough to imagine legislators unintentionally invalidating basically all of a states employment contracts this way, for example.