5 ms·

>Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country I already stated those words, you're not parsing closely enough. Right after they say w

>Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country I already stated those words, you're not parsing closely enough. Right after they say what you just said, they said and I quoted, "The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions." why would they say "may not" instead of "are not"? because they don't care if you use the services, they just want to be able to hide behind the other statement if you become a pain in the ass. Notice that in his interactions with the company, they are not bringing to bear the statement that you think is so binding. They are actually saying that they want to help him. If you live in a foreign country, and open a bank account and they tell you "it's for residents only", if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money. Every modern country has ways of dealing with these issues, they've been happening since the days of sailing ships. In modern times the new challenge is not long ocean voyages, but how to deal with a company that is online only and has no humans. But you know what the company has? Legal counsel, they have to. And you can contact that department/attorney and say you have a legal beef, and they will do something.

zinekeller 3y ago
> if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money. Oh sure, I'm not disputing that (and I certainly would want sherlock_h to get their life savings), but again Marcus has been so clear in this (including not allowing to input a non-US number and address) that you having to say "oh it's boilerplate stuff" runs against the practicality that, yes, Marcus does not want people outside the US to hold accounts. Also, "may not" is almost always certainly interpreted in law as equivalent as "shall not". There are edge cases where this is not the case, but both federal and Utah law (where Marcus legally operates) use this meaning.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  you edited, which doesn't bother me but now i'll edit :) They are not invoking this clause, they are trying to help him. So the clause is not for the purpose you are suggesting. I had another realization: they probably need the clause to not violate US laws about money laundering and international money movements. It doesn't mean they don't want to, they're a website, the more customers the better. It means they don't want to deal with regulation
  - zinekeller 3y ago
    Please ask a lawyer on how to interpret "may not" and you will understand on why I'm continually insisting. (Yes, "may" has some leeway, "may not" does not have a leeway. IDK why is this the case, but legalese is legalese.)
    - justinclift 3y ago
      I looks like the user created the account when in the US, so was legally allowed to do so. It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?
      - zinekeller 3y ago
        > It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas? Yes. I'm not saying that they're not *entitled* to their money (in fact Goldman Sachs must give sherlock_h the funds in their account) but Marcus is clear on this that this provision is a continuing eligibility (and is legally allowed to put restrictions like this).
        justinclift 3y ago
        So, what's the process sherlock_h should use to retrieve their funds once they've moved overseas? The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out. But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?
        zinekeller 3y ago
        > The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out. Yes, this is indeed the most obvious way, but most banks would flag that transfer (especially since it is a large amount) because it was done outside the US. > But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else? Optimally you would do that before moving, but I'm assuming that this is beyond their control due to COVID-19 so this is understandable. Probably very unpopular here (downvote away if you prefer) but this by manually contacting Goldman-Sachs by mail and essentially inform them your particular circumstances. This is understandably a long and frustrating process, but short of physically coming back to the US to sort this then this is the closest method possible.

zinekeller 3y ago

> if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money. Oh sure, I'm not disputing that (and I certainly would want sherlock_h to get their life savings), but again Marcus has been so clear in this (including not allowing to input a non-US number and address) that you having to say "oh it's boilerplate stuff" runs against the practicality that, yes, Marcus does not want people outside the US to hold accounts. Also, "may not" is almost always certainly interpreted in law as equivalent as "shall not". There are edge cases where this is not the case, but both federal and Utah law (where Marcus legally operates) use this meaning.

fsckboy 3y ago
you edited, which doesn't bother me but now i'll edit :) They are not invoking this clause, they are trying to help him. So the clause is not for the purpose you are suggesting. I had another realization: they probably need the clause to not violate US laws about money laundering and international money movements. It doesn't mean they don't want to, they're a website, the more customers the better. It means they don't want to deal with regulation
- zinekeller 3y ago
  Please ask a lawyer on how to interpret "may not" and you will understand on why I'm continually insisting. (Yes, "may" has some leeway, "may not" does not have a leeway. IDK why is this the case, but legalese is legalese.)
  - justinclift 3y ago
    I looks like the user created the account when in the US, so was legally allowed to do so. It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?
    - zinekeller 3y ago
      > It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas? Yes. I'm not saying that they're not *entitled* to their money (in fact Goldman Sachs must give sherlock_h the funds in their account) but Marcus is clear on this that this provision is a continuing eligibility (and is legally allowed to put restrictions like this).
      - justinclift 3y ago
        So, what's the process sherlock_h should use to retrieve their funds once they've moved overseas? The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out. But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?
        zinekeller 3y ago
        > The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out. Yes, this is indeed the most obvious way, but most banks would flag that transfer (especially since it is a large amount) because it was done outside the US. > But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else? Optimally you would do that before moving, but I'm assuming that this is beyond their control due to COVID-19 so this is understandable. Probably very unpopular here (downvote away if you prefer) but this by manually contacting Goldman-Sachs by mail and essentially inform them your particular circumstances. This is understandably a long and frustrating process, but short of physically coming back to the US to sort this then this is the closest method possible.