3 ms·

I had no idea that was in there. That's what I get for not reading the ToS. How does Section XIV, sentence 8 work? Does it have any legal standing at all?

by ntumlin 12y ago

freehunter 12y ago
The way he mischaracterized it, no. If its illegal, it's illegal, and no contract is valid when it forces someone to do something illegal. The way it's actually worded, yes, most contracts will specify this. The way it's actually worded really means "if a certain part of this agreement is found to be invalid, the other (still valid) parts are still enforceable. Basically, if part of the contract is void, you can't void the entire contract. I would hope people can recognize that the way Decade portrays the contract is not the way it's actually worded.
- Decade 12y ago
  It's very common to include the "other provisions hereof shall remain in full force" clause. I'm fine with that. But this is the first time I've seen "the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision," and I don't like the uncertainty about that, especially given my objection to Section II paragraph 2.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    If you search Google for that term, you'll find out how common it actually is. The first few results I see: Pearson Kentucky Fried Chicken Instagram Western Michigan University Florida State University Call of Duty NFL MIT City and County of San Francisco Cloudflare Yahoo WoWHead So whatever your uncertainty about it, it's not an uncommon legal concept, and you may already have agreed to it in the ToS of another service you use or company you do business with. edit - In fact, Apple combines those two clauses together in their ToS, but most assuredly they do have that stipulation: If any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as nearly as possible, the original intentions of the parties... http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms...
    - Decade 12y ago
      The other companies don't claim to be hacker-friendly, except for MIT, nor do they try to forbid you from making your own thing or practicing free speech. Pearson sucks. Why would anybody want to be compared to Pearson?
      - freehunter 12y ago
        Okay, this conversation is over. You said it was an uncommon clause in a legal document, I showed that it wasn't and tried to comfort your fears, and that's as far as I'm willing to take it. You seem like you have an agenda against Pebble for something other than what is being stated, and I'm not going to get into that.
        Decade 12y ago
        Eh, second page now, being pedantic is fine. I didn't say it was uncommon. I said that I didn't see it before. Especially not in connection with the other clauses. I canceled my order before I even reached Section XIV. I do have a mild case of Internet-rage at Pebble, but it's not unstated. I said it at the beginning of my first post in this thread: They cultivated an image of being hacker-friendly, but they're as restrictive as Apple and Google. It felt like a betrayal of principles.

I had no idea that was in there. That's what I get for not reading the ToS. How does Section XIV, sentence 8 work? Does it have any legal standing at all?

by ntumlin 12y ago

I had no idea that was in there. That's what I get for not reading the ToS. How does Section XIV, sentence 8 work? Does it have any legal standing at all?

freehunter 12y ago

The way he mischaracterized it, no. If its illegal, it's illegal, and no contract is valid when it forces someone to do something illegal. The way it's actually worded, yes, most contracts will specify this. The way it's actually worded really means "if a certain part of this agreement is found to be invalid, the other (still valid) parts are still enforceable. Basically, if part of the contract is void, you can't void the entire contract. I would hope people can recognize that the way Decade portrays the contract is not the way it's actually worded.

Decade 12y ago
It's very common to include the "other provisions hereof shall remain in full force" clause. I'm fine with that. But this is the first time I've seen "the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision," and I don't like the uncertainty about that, especially given my objection to Section II paragraph 2.
- freehunter 12y ago
  If you search Google for that term, you'll find out how common it actually is. The first few results I see: Pearson Kentucky Fried Chicken Instagram Western Michigan University Florida State University Call of Duty NFL MIT City and County of San Francisco Cloudflare Yahoo WoWHead So whatever your uncertainty about it, it's not an uncommon legal concept, and you may already have agreed to it in the ToS of another service you use or company you do business with. edit - In fact, Apple combines those two clauses together in their ToS, but most assuredly they do have that stipulation: If any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as nearly as possible, the original intentions of the parties... http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms...
  - Decade 12y ago
    The other companies don't claim to be hacker-friendly, except for MIT, nor do they try to forbid you from making your own thing or practicing free speech. Pearson sucks. Why would anybody want to be compared to Pearson?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Okay, this conversation is over. You said it was an uncommon clause in a legal document, I showed that it wasn't and tried to comfort your fears, and that's as far as I'm willing to take it. You seem like you have an agenda against Pebble for something other than what is being stated, and I'm not going to get into that.
      - Decade 12y ago
        Eh, second page now, being pedantic is fine. I didn't say it was uncommon. I said that I didn't see it before. Especially not in connection with the other clauses. I canceled my order before I even reached Section XIV. I do have a mild case of Internet-rage at Pebble, but it's not unstated. I said it at the beginning of my first post in this thread: They cultivated an image of being hacker-friendly, but they're as restrictive as Apple and Google. It felt like a betrayal of principles.