4 ms·

Can downvoters explain why they are doing so? I agree with both of these points (first sale doctrine and that a license is not a contract) and would like to hea

by tofof 3y ago

Can downvoters explain why they are doing so? I agree with both of these points (first sale doctrine and that a license is not a contract) and would like to hear explanation of why they are mistaken here. In particular, there is no consideration offered by either party, and so this cannot be contractual on its face.

Sakos 3y ago
Agree. Contracts can't override legal obligations. You can't sign away your rights and companies can't write contracts that absolve them of their legal obligations. It doesn't matter if both parties involved "agree" to it.
tzs 3y ago
If I've understood the Motorola page correctly, they do not give you the unlock code for your device if you do not agree to the terms. That would be consideration.
- ajross 3y ago
  Which as mentioned would be a pretty novel argument. In all other circumstances in the industry, it's just an EULA you have to click through to download software. Those have repeatedly been found unenforceable any time someone tries to do something tricky or weird with one. Clicking away your right to sell your own property is awfully weird. Contracts that do complicated things involve negotiation and signatures, generally. The more you rely on caveat emptor and the assumption that the License Clicker read through all the fine print, the more likely you are to get your contract tossed. And of course there's a wikipedia page on this too, in parciular the "contracts of adhesion" paragraph under the US law section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > That would be consideration. For device you already own? I don’t think so
  - tzs 3y ago
    I don't see how that would be relevant to the question of whether or not there is consideration. They are giving you something valuable in exchange for a promise. That what makes it valuable to you is that you can use it with a device you already own does not change that. Contract law generally just cares that it is valuable, not the particulars of what makes it valuable.

by tofof 3y ago

Sakos 3y ago

Agree. Contracts can't override legal obligations. You can't sign away your rights and companies can't write contracts that absolve them of their legal obligations. It doesn't matter if both parties involved "agree" to it.

tzs 3y ago

If I've understood the Motorola page correctly, they do not give you the unlock code for your device if you do not agree to the terms. That would be consideration.

ajross 3y ago
Which as mentioned would be a pretty novel argument. In all other circumstances in the industry, it's just an EULA you have to click through to download software. Those have repeatedly been found unenforceable any time someone tries to do something tricky or weird with one. Clicking away your right to sell your own property is awfully weird. Contracts that do complicated things involve negotiation and signatures, generally. The more you rely on caveat emptor and the assumption that the License Clicker read through all the fine print, the more likely you are to get your contract tossed. And of course there's a wikipedia page on this too, in parciular the "contracts of adhesion" paragraph under the US law section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> That would be consideration. For device you already own? I don’t think so
- tzs 3y ago
  I don't see how that would be relevant to the question of whether or not there is consideration. They are giving you something valuable in exchange for a promise. That what makes it valuable to you is that you can use it with a device you already own does not change that. Contract law generally just cares that it is valuable, not the particulars of what makes it valuable.