3 ms·

> it's not a legal definition, but it is a marketplace definition: > if I give you permission that I did not realise or understand, it's not really permission

by lutusp 13y ago

> it's not a legal definition, but it is a marketplace definition: > if I give you permission that I did not realise or understand, it's not really permission. Yes, that's true, but it's also true in a legal sense. At least in the U.S., if you enter into a contract that includes conditions that no reasonable person would agree to, those are called "unconscionable" conditions, they have no force, and therefore the contract has no force. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-unconscionable-contract.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-unc... Quote: "What is an Unconscionable Contract? An unconscionable contract is one that is so one-sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable under law. It is a type of contract that leaves one party with no real, meaningful choice, usually due to major differences in bargaining power between the parties."

quanticle 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still holds. In other words, each part of the contract has to be struck down individually for the whole contract to be struck down.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still holds. Yes, one sees that. Unfortunately, a contract that includes such statements, designed to avoid the consequences of unconscionable terms, are themselves unconscionable. My point is that you can't put language into a contract that contradicts contract law, and the idea of invalidating a contract based on unconscionable terms, terms no rational person would agree to, is part of contract law. Just speaking from experience, and IANAL.

by lutusp 13y ago

quanticle 13y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still holds. In other words, each part of the contract has to be struck down individually for the whole contract to be struck down.

lutusp 13y ago
> I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still holds. Yes, one sees that. Unfortunately, a contract that includes such statements, designed to avoid the consequences of unconscionable terms, are themselves unconscionable. My point is that you can't put language into a contract that contradicts contract law, and the idea of invalidating a contract based on unconscionable terms, terms no rational person would agree to, is part of contract law. Just speaking from experience, and IANAL.