3 ms·

If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where ei

If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. Also worth noting, the old T&C you agreed to probably included a clause about these sorts of updates, too. So, right there, you've already explicitly agreed to a contract that can be terminated if you don't accept updates. > The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. The legal argument is that (a) you were explicitly notified of these changes, (b) your rights to use the service under the previous contract have been revoked, and (c) you're continuing to use the service. So, either you're stealing their service, or you did in fact explicitly agree to the new contract - "“Parties traditionally manifest assent by written or spoken word, but they can also do so through conduct.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 855."

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
qnleigh 8mo ago
> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Suppose you're using a note taking app, and one day they update their terms of service to say that they can use your notes to train their AI. "Continued use implies consent," so you are locked into the new terms of service unless you stop using the app right then and there. You are not afforded the opportunity to decline the new terms of service and continue on the old ones.
- handoflixue 8mo ago
  > I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Yeah, because, as I said: the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. So, when they terminate that old contract, it's based entirely on the terms of that old contract. You agreed to this up-front. What's the alternative? Force companies to offer indefinite contracts?
  - qnleigh 8mo ago
    I don't know where to draw the line, but if I buy a phone for $1000, I don't think the company should be able to change their terms of service on me the next day.
shakna 8mo ago
Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. Vader might say he can change the deal at any point, but consumer law generally requires that what is purchased reflects what is advertised. If you don't agree to a new set of terms, because the service is changed from what you purchased, then both parties generally should still be party to the previous. Notification alone, is not enough. Agreement is required.
- handoflixue 8mo ago
  Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to. If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.
  - shakna 8mo ago
    > Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term. Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage. Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is consent. Usage where you already agreed to terms implicitly, because you sought and understood them beforehand. It will not always be an agreement to new terms. > This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
    - handoflixue 8mo ago
      The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?
      - shakna 8mo ago
IAmBroom 8mo ago
> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Obviously never true anywhere on Earth.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

qnleigh 8mo ago

> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Suppose you're using a note taking app, and one day they update their terms of service to say that they can use your notes to train their AI. "Continued use implies consent," so you are locked into the new terms of service unless you stop using the app right then and there. You are not afforded the opportunity to decline the new terms of service and continue on the old ones.

handoflixue 8mo ago
> I think the point of contention here is that in practice, there is no way to continue on the old terms of service/contract. Yeah, because, as I said: the old T&C you agreed to probably include a clause where either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement for any reason, which they can then invoke. So, when they terminate that old contract, it's based entirely on the terms of that old contract. You agreed to this up-front. What's the alternative? Force companies to offer indefinite contracts?
- qnleigh 8mo ago
  I don't know where to draw the line, but if I buy a phone for $1000, I don't think the company should be able to change their terms of service on me the next day.

shakna 8mo ago

Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. Vader might say he can change the deal at any point, but consumer law generally requires that what is purchased reflects what is advertised. If you don't agree to a new set of terms, because the service is changed from what you purchased, then both parties generally should still be party to the previous. Notification alone, is not enough. Agreement is required.

handoflixue 8mo ago
Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to. If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.
- shakna 8mo ago
  > Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term. Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage. Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is consent. Usage where you already agreed to terms implicitly, because you sought and understood them beforehand. It will not always be an agreement to new terms. > This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
  - handoflixue 8mo ago
    The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?
    - shakna 8mo ago

IAmBroom 8mo ago

> If you decline the new contract, you're entirely welcome to continue on the old T&C. Obviously never true anywhere on Earth.