4 ms·

That raises whole other legal questions.... One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't r

by devney 5y ago

That raises whole other legal questions.... One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Usually these cases involve coercion or not knowing the language. If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it? Since BigCo deliberately made their EULA harder to read than necessary, that probably counts as "acting in bad faith" which is an entirely different legal avenue for the EULA to be void.

InitialLastName 5y ago
> One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Wait, there has to be more nuance to this, right? Like, I can't just sign a contract and say "I didn't read it" when a term I don't like comes into force. Is there a precedent for where that line is?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  There is much more to it and I wouldn't trust any legal advice given to you by OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum
- bluGill 5y ago
  For those who can't be bothered to read wikipedia, this only applies when the courts can find you read it to the best of your ability and misunderstood it. Mostly it applies to those who can't read (either at all or the language of the contract) and so trusted someone else to tell them what it meant and they were deceived. If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not understand it does the contract not apply.
  - devney 5y ago
    "If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands." That's the point, isn't it? Gideon v. Wainwright clearly established that no non-lawyer can be expected to win against a trained lawyer. Since BigCo has a team of trained lawyers making the EULA impossible to read, ... Well, Gideon didn't go this far, but if we extend the logic in that ruling, there's certainly a major precedent that nobody can be expected to understand the EULA, and thus it might be void.
    - eitland 5y ago
      I support this interpretation. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not their first language an even among those who know English well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a separate language.
- devney 5y ago
  Of course there's more nuance to this. As I mentioned, these cases usually involve coercion (someone held a gun to your head and made you sign the contract) or not speaking the language (interpreter wasn't available/translated wrong/deceived). This question then rests on: Can the user reasonably be expected to read 10 pages of dense legalese? I think the real-life answer is an obvious NO. Current law generally assumes YES, except in cases where it doesn't. You see how there's some conflict here which I expect to be clarified by some court soon.
dane-pgp 5y ago
I can't help thinking that the correct "malicious compliance" strategy for legislators to tackle this is to pass a law that says any time a user is required to agree to an EULA on a device which is capable of playing audio files, the device should have to play an unskippable audio recording of the EULA being spoken out loud by a voice actor, at a normal talking speed. Adding a 30 minute wait before someone can use your product or your website would ruin the customer experience, and would encourage at least some companies to question which clauses are actually needed.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
It's printed quite clearly in the quick start guide that it'll break your phone if you do it. Maybe people should read the little booklet, but as you can see it's not hidden under a pile of text. > Approved firmware versions > This device will only operate with > firmware versions that have been > approved for use by your wireless > carrier and the device manufacturer. > If unauthorized firmware is placed on > the device it will not function https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/20210817035806250/Common_Merged_Q2_IBG_TC_071421_FINAL.pdf https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/2021081...
- devney 5y ago
  Discussion question: If something is immoral and debatably illegal, does documenting it in the quick start guide make it somehow less immoral? Or does that just mean it was documented?
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    You posed the following question: > If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it? I explained to you that the premise of your question was flawed. I didn't comment on any other considerations beyond that.
tzs 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

by devney 5y ago

InitialLastName 5y ago

> One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Wait, there has to be more nuance to this, right? Like, I can't just sign a contract and say "I didn't read it" when a term I don't like comes into force. Is there a precedent for where that line is?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scoopertrooper 5y ago
There is much more to it and I wouldn't trust any legal advice given to you by OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum
bluGill 5y ago
For those who can't be bothered to read wikipedia, this only applies when the courts can find you read it to the best of your ability and misunderstood it. Mostly it applies to those who can't read (either at all or the language of the contract) and so trusted someone else to tell them what it meant and they were deceived. If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not understand it does the contract not apply.
- devney 5y ago
  "If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands." That's the point, isn't it? Gideon v. Wainwright clearly established that no non-lawyer can be expected to win against a trained lawyer. Since BigCo has a team of trained lawyers making the EULA impossible to read, ... Well, Gideon didn't go this far, but if we extend the logic in that ruling, there's certainly a major precedent that nobody can be expected to understand the EULA, and thus it might be void.
  - eitland 5y ago
    I support this interpretation. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not their first language an even among those who know English well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a separate language.
devney 5y ago
Of course there's more nuance to this. As I mentioned, these cases usually involve coercion (someone held a gun to your head and made you sign the contract) or not speaking the language (interpreter wasn't available/translated wrong/deceived). This question then rests on: Can the user reasonably be expected to read 10 pages of dense legalese? I think the real-life answer is an obvious NO. Current law generally assumes YES, except in cases where it doesn't. You see how there's some conflict here which I expect to be clarified by some court soon.

dane-pgp 5y ago

I can't help thinking that the correct "malicious compliance" strategy for legislators to tackle this is to pass a law that says any time a user is required to agree to an EULA on a device which is capable of playing audio files, the device should have to play an unskippable audio recording of the EULA being spoken out loud by a voice actor, at a normal talking speed. Adding a 30 minute wait before someone can use your product or your website would ruin the customer experience, and would encourage at least some companies to question which clauses are actually needed.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

It's printed quite clearly in the quick start guide that it'll break your phone if you do it. Maybe people should read the little booklet, but as you can see it's not hidden under a pile of text. > Approved firmware versions > This device will only operate with > firmware versions that have been > approved for use by your wireless > carrier and the device manufacturer. > If unauthorized firmware is placed on > the device it will not function https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/20210817035806250/Common_Merged_Q2_IBG_TC_071421_FINAL.pdf https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/2021081...

devney 5y ago
Discussion question: If something is immoral and debatably illegal, does documenting it in the quick start guide make it somehow less immoral? Or does that just mean it was documented?
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  You posed the following question: > If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it? I explained to you that the premise of your question was flawed. I didn't comment on any other considerations beyond that.

tzs 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg