3 ms·

Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parti

Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part. The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.

lesuorac 7mo ago
Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here. To me the insane part is that contracts don't have to be registered with the courts (or some qualified third party) ahead of time. Like each party could show up with their own piece of paper (or not be able to provide it). Which is largely the issue here in that one party is showing up with a 2021 document and the other a 2023 document.
- impossiblefork 7mo ago
  >Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here. Yes, of course. We don't have any rules about contracts needing to be written down or registered or anything of that sort. Even verbal agreement are valid, and you are entering into simple contracts even when you buy something in a store.
victorbjorklund 7mo ago
This is not true. It is 100% possible to write a contract in Sweden where one of the paragraphs says that you can change it in this and that way. And if we're talking about business to business contracts, it will probably in almost all cases be enforceable, even if you're writing that one party can just announce changes. In fact, I think most business to business contracts have some kind of clause specifying that it is possible to raise prices or change certain things.
- impossiblefork 7mo ago
  That absolutely isn't true. You can enter into agreements about how to form a contract, but a contract is definite, completely specific, with no changing provisions. That's what makes it a contract. If you have an agreement that says one party can announce changes, you don't have a contract, because those changes were not agreed to.
- shevy-java 7mo ago
  I am not sure that is correct. At the least it sounds to be a violation of EU laws if this were possible in Sweden; but, even aside from it, I do not think a contract can be changed willy-nilly without offering termination of the service in due time.
Quarrel 7mo ago
I do not think this is true for Sweden. The key difference, is that the US is many jurisdictions (Federal + 50 states + a lot of others, from counties to cities to territories to MANY others), and the variance amongst those is high. The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet. In the US, these things have huge variability. There are well regulated states, and well, the others.
- impossiblefork 7mo ago
  >The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet. Yes, but Swedish contract law actually is like this. A contract is a specific agreement, it can never be "Oh well, you can add provisions as you like if you send them to me" or "I will pay whatever".
  - close04 7mo ago
    The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.
    - repelsteeltje 7mo ago
      But that would supposed need to have some explicit text stating the expiration of that contract. An existing contract can't just end when provider feels like it, I suppose?
      - jtbayly 7mo ago
mv4 7mo ago
Wondering how Spotify is handling this issue https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-09-24/spotify-terms-creators-guide/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-09-24/spotify-terms-creato...
x0x0 7mo ago
That's not what's happening as far as I can tell. These users have agreed to a monthly contract or, if there is no money paid, a contract with no finite end date but with provisions to change terms, essentially terminating and restarting. So the service provider has decided to amend the contract at the end of the current (one month) contract in the first case, or on some date arbitrary date in the second (unpaid). The users are free not to accept the new contracts. So nobody is just changing a contract mid stream. Use of a service month-to-month implicitly agrees to this: your ability to stop using and paying them on the 1st of the next month is their ability to change the terms on which the service is offered next month. And btw, everyone on here hates this, but I don't know how else it could work. The idea that if I sell a customer one month of a paid saas on a monthly plan I'm somehow obligated to never change my terms or price forever as long as he or she keeps paying is beyond absurd. If people want stable terms, they need to find software that will sell them annual or multiyear contracts.
- impossiblefork 7mo ago
  I think the way it would normally work is that you present them with the price offer and ask whether they accept, and if they do you render the service.
  - x0x0 7mo ago
    This is exactly the same. The company has changed the terms under which they will offer the service starting next contract renewal.

lesuorac 7mo ago

Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here. To me the insane part is that contracts don't have to be registered with the courts (or some qualified third party) ahead of time. Like each party could show up with their own piece of paper (or not be able to provide it). Which is largely the issue here in that one party is showing up with a 2021 document and the other a 2023 document.

impossiblefork 7mo ago
>Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here. Yes, of course. We don't have any rules about contracts needing to be written down or registered or anything of that sort. Even verbal agreement are valid, and you are entering into simple contracts even when you buy something in a store.

victorbjorklund 7mo ago

This is not true. It is 100% possible to write a contract in Sweden where one of the paragraphs says that you can change it in this and that way. And if we're talking about business to business contracts, it will probably in almost all cases be enforceable, even if you're writing that one party can just announce changes. In fact, I think most business to business contracts have some kind of clause specifying that it is possible to raise prices or change certain things.

impossiblefork 7mo ago
That absolutely isn't true. You can enter into agreements about how to form a contract, but a contract is definite, completely specific, with no changing provisions. That's what makes it a contract. If you have an agreement that says one party can announce changes, you don't have a contract, because those changes were not agreed to.
shevy-java 7mo ago
I am not sure that is correct. At the least it sounds to be a violation of EU laws if this were possible in Sweden; but, even aside from it, I do not think a contract can be changed willy-nilly without offering termination of the service in due time.

Quarrel 7mo ago

I do not think this is true for Sweden. The key difference, is that the US is many jurisdictions (Federal + 50 states + a lot of others, from counties to cities to territories to MANY others), and the variance amongst those is high. The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet. In the US, these things have huge variability. There are well regulated states, and well, the others.

impossiblefork 7mo ago
>The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet. Yes, but Swedish contract law actually is like this. A contract is a specific agreement, it can never be "Oh well, you can add provisions as you like if you send them to me" or "I will pay whatever".
- close04 7mo ago
  The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.
  - repelsteeltje 7mo ago
    But that would supposed need to have some explicit text stating the expiration of that contract. An existing contract can't just end when provider feels like it, I suppose?
    - jtbayly 7mo ago

mv4 7mo ago

Wondering how Spotify is handling this issue https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-09-24/spotify-terms-creators-guide/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-09-24/spotify-terms-creato...

x0x0 7mo ago

That's not what's happening as far as I can tell. These users have agreed to a monthly contract or, if there is no money paid, a contract with no finite end date but with provisions to change terms, essentially terminating and restarting. So the service provider has decided to amend the contract at the end of the current (one month) contract in the first case, or on some date arbitrary date in the second (unpaid). The users are free not to accept the new contracts. So nobody is just changing a contract mid stream. Use of a service month-to-month implicitly agrees to this: your ability to stop using and paying them on the 1st of the next month is their ability to change the terms on which the service is offered next month. And btw, everyone on here hates this, but I don't know how else it could work. The idea that if I sell a customer one month of a paid saas on a monthly plan I'm somehow obligated to never change my terms or price forever as long as he or she keeps paying is beyond absurd. If people want stable terms, they need to find software that will sell them annual or multiyear contracts.

impossiblefork 7mo ago
I think the way it would normally work is that you present them with the price offer and ask whether they accept, and if they do you render the service.
- x0x0 7mo ago
  This is exactly the same. The company has changed the terms under which they will offer the service starting next contract renewal.