23 ms·
Vagueness is to be construed against the drafter of the contract, Google in this case.
by henryfjordan 5y ago
Vagueness is to be construed against the drafter of the contract, Google in this case.
- nickff 5y agoI believe that only applies to contracts of adhesion (in most areas), though this contract may be one of adhesion. The presumption would probably be taken to mean that the employee couldn't be fired 'with cause' for 'being evil', but I don't know how you'd prove Google was 'being evil'. This is tantamount to accusing someone of fraud for saying that they 'were nice', but then not 'being nice'.
- henryfjordan 5y agoI don't think it applies strictly to contracts of adhesion, just contracts where a single party was the drafter of the bad term. This case will not hinge on what the definition of "evil" is, but on whether "don't be evil" was a real term of the contract or some errata in the employee handbook. And even then, the complaint isn't "Google was evil" but rather "Google's handbook said to point out evil when I see it and they fired me for it".
- xyproto 5y agoThat's a clever rule. Does most justice systems in the world have this?
- henryfjordan 5y agoThe US would have most likely inherited that rule from England. I'd imagine there's a form of that rule in most legal systems though. see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem