3 ms·
Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, t
by runako 13y ago
Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here.
Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it.
Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.
- dangero 13y ago"Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs." I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning. I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.