5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoAgain, 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 Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling.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 agoThe 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 Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?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 agoI quoted the article. The article itself claims to be an unpublished ruling.