2 ms·
I 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 me
by nickff 5y ago
I 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".