3 ms·

EULAs are "contracts of adhesion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contrac

by aneth4 14y ago

EULAs are "contracts of adhesion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contract... While they are not worthless, they are not nearly as binding or enforceable as your normal commercial contract. Standards vary and the jurisprudence is not clear, but indeed you "can't give up your civil rights with single click."

vavb 14y ago
Not sure where you're from aneth, but in Commonwealth jurisdictions they definitely are binding. Any ambiguity is construed against the party that wrote the contract (which is the same in normal commercial contracts) and any unfairness is generally not allowed (same as normal consumer contracts). The case law in Australia will enforce standard form contracts where the weaker party misunderstood terms that are not ambiguous. Facebook doesn't really have any ambiguity with their EULA. Failing to read the EULA probably isn't enough. On a side note, nearly all insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion. It's usually a breach of utmost good faith (which doesn't come into play in normal consumer contracts) which will determine enforceability. Facebook only have to act with good faith, which they more or less do. Edit: i'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, i've just picked up bits and pieces as I've gone :-)
aneth4 14y ago
vavb: you appear to be hellbanned I am from the US, and that is certainly not the case here. Contracts of adhesion are relatively weak here.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
chacham15 14y ago
No, the fact that it is a contract of adhesion only goes to show that there was procedural unconscionability, you still need to prove that there is substantive unconscionability in order to show that the contract is unfair and therefore unenforceable. So yes, you can "give up your civil rights with single click." (At least as far as American law is concerned)

by aneth4 14y ago

vavb 14y ago

Not sure where you're from aneth, but in Commonwealth jurisdictions they definitely are binding. Any ambiguity is construed against the party that wrote the contract (which is the same in normal commercial contracts) and any unfairness is generally not allowed (same as normal consumer contracts). The case law in Australia will enforce standard form contracts where the weaker party misunderstood terms that are not ambiguous. Facebook doesn't really have any ambiguity with their EULA. Failing to read the EULA probably isn't enough. On a side note, nearly all insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion. It's usually a breach of utmost good faith (which doesn't come into play in normal consumer contracts) which will determine enforceability. Facebook only have to act with good faith, which they more or less do. Edit: i'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, i've just picked up bits and pieces as I've gone :-)

aneth4 14y ago

vavb: you appear to be hellbanned I am from the US, and that is certainly not the case here. Contracts of adhesion are relatively weak here.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

chacham15 14y ago

No, the fact that it is a contract of adhesion only goes to show that there was procedural unconscionability, you still need to prove that there is substantive unconscionability in order to show that the contract is unfair and therefore unenforceable. So yes, you can "give up your civil rights with single click." (At least as far as American law is concerned)