4 ms·
don't know what you're smoking, but this is not the law in California -- which is what Slack chose (unilaterally) as the governing law of this document.
by mark212 12y ago
don't know what you're smoking, but this is not the law in California -- which is what Slack chose (unilaterally) as the governing law of this document.
- kordless 12y agoI believe that's a federal rule governed by the FTC, not the state.
- mark212 12y agothe FTC does not have plenary power over all contracts. There are certain "cooling off" periods for specific purchases (cell phone service and automobiles come to mind) but as a general rule? No way. And really really no way in this context.
- anonbanker 12y ago> don't know what you're smoking, Silver Skunk, actually. :) As to the law in California, which Slack chose, I'll just take from page 12 of Contracts: Examples And Explanations (Fourth Edition), a book I got in first-year: "It would be remiss not to at least draw to your attention that courts do not mechanically apply rules of law. Judges and juries are sensitive to the equities of individual cases and the circumstance of the parties, and where a mechanical application of rules achieves a result that seems to be unjust, there is likely to be some adjustment or even manipulation of the rule to avoid it." So, with the above in mind, let's say that, while they really want the governing law to be based in California, if one party decides to keep this contract squarely governed within Article 33 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Arbitration Rules (after all, isn't California law in harmony with international law?), then the court would necessarily understand why filing in California, or even only recognizing the limited rights that exist in California law, might not be prudent in all circumstances.