4 ms·
While it can be inferred, that is most certainly not clear, and any lawyer worth their salt would tear these two conflicting clauses to pieces.
by binarymax 5y ago
While it can be inferred, that is most certainly not clear, and any lawyer worth their salt would tear these two conflicting clauses to pieces.
- paxys 5y agoI have no background in law and this difference was immediately clear to me. The text itself mentions examples that make all of this pretty explicit. I can also assure you that Amazon's lawyers who wrote this agreement are most certainly "worth their salt".
- binarymax 5y agoIncluding the misspelling in clause 5? "I will submit it for sate [sic] on the Amazon platform"
- paxys 5y agoYou are reading the version reprinted on someone's blog, not the original text.
- beerandt 5y agoI don't think they're contradictions, especially if "resources and information" is defined elsewhere, but if we're assuming it's vague or contradicting then: If it's in Amazon's interest to be misleading or ambiguous, then the lawyers are doing their job. Make the text seem to imply one thing (to get employees to sign it), while text in another part of the contract is explicit in contradicting it.
- sam345 5y agoEven good lawyers make mistakes and draft vague clauses all the time. That's why there are lawsuits. Rule of thumb is that if a person can make a plausible argument for a particular interpretation you can bet it's going to be made in litigation.