3 ms·
I understand your point. But actually these are the standard terms that companies in the US pretend that users have agreed to. I just put it in more explicit la
by leephillips 6y ago
I understand your point. But actually these are the standard terms that companies in the US pretend that users have agreed to. I just put it in more explicit language. There are always clauses about not promising merchantability, etc. For me, it means that I intend to and will try to provide what I promise, but if it breaks you have agreed not to sue me.
- Closi 6y agoSaying your product is not fit for purpose within the terms is absolutely not part of standard terms, and I suspect these terms currently make it MUCH easier to sue you, not less ('He knew his product wasn't fit for purpose yet he sold the service anyway!'). Also, your terms currently let you take payment and not even provide the paid-for service (i.e. cancel it for any reason with no refund, and no right to even ask for refund, and I can't even find a support email!) - this seems shady to me if you are asking for $300 for lifetime membership! I would expect a pro-rated refund for subscriptions as a minimum, and some sort of pro-rata for the $300 (e.g. over 5 years). Besides - why are you trying to emulate other people’s shitty practices? If someone isn’t happy why not let them at least request a refund? My personal advice would be - just get some generic terms written by an actual lawyer and put them in instead. Or just copy/paste some pre-written terms you can find available on any number of websites. It will look more professional, protect you more, and be more reasonable to your users :)