3 ms·
That fact does not change the point of the individual to which you replied. Regardless of whether the clauses in the EULA are 100% legal, some mixture or 100%
by pwg 6mo ago
That fact does not change the point of the individual to which you replied. Regardless of whether the clauses in the EULA are 100% legal, some mixture or 100% illegal, the entire EULA is a "one sided rule-book dictated completely by one side". You, the person held to the EULA's rules, do not get to negotiate on the individual points. You simply have a "take it or go away" set of options.
- nickburns 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_(contract_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_(contract_law)
- rolph 6mo agowhen you already pay for the device and a contract, then surprise now that you have skin and flesh in the game, you HAVE TO agree to this EULA or your property is a brick and we keep your money. that is defined as extortion, but labled as onboarding.
- kube-system 6mo agoCourts do look poorly upon this -- to have a valid contract of adhesion there is some degree of advanced notice required and ability to reject it.
- kube-system 6mo agoYou're talking about contracts of adhesion and they are overwhelmingly common for B2C agreements. Most red-lining of contracts only happens in high-value B2B transactions where the sums of money involved are enough that it makes sense to bring lawyers into the loop.
- nine_k 6mo agoIf the product has any serious audience / traction, it becomes profitable to scan its EULA for illegal clauses, and sue the company for damages (and maybe extra punishment for breaking the law). The fact that 100% of its users, except the litigant, skimmed through the EULA and did not notice anything does not relieve the company from the responsibility.