3 ms·

IANAL.. would this contract be enforceable? Because it seems the event org gets: $20, exclusive IP ownership, indemnification, etc and the participant gets:

IANAL.. would this contract be enforceable? Because it seems the event org gets: $20, exclusive IP ownership, indemnification, etc and the participant gets: to do work (and one person gets $5k, and two people get gift cards) Where's the quid pro quo? Seems like there's no consideration for one side. Edit: the contract says that providing a place to work (which will be done at their direction, supervision, and for their sole benefit) and the 3 prizes are the only things they'll provide. Is that enough for this to be considered a fair/enforceable contract?

diydsp 11y ago
My lawyer friend echoes the same concern. A contract is two-way.
bradleyland 11y ago
That was the first thing I thought. Turning over IP and offering indemnification... for what exactly? That indemnification clause is utterly ridiculous in this context. Our company works with a lot of governments, and indemnification clauses of this type are extremely common any time there is software involved. What's crazy about this circumstance is that the participants aren't contractors writing code for the city... Or are they? Based on the indemnification requirement, it seems that's how the city views it. It appears un-enforcable to me (IANAL, but I do deal with this shit a lot). However, just because a contract can't be enforced doesn't mean it won't cause you trouble. I'd walk before I signed a contract like this at a hackathon. No "chance" at a prize is worth this kind of exposure.
sp332 11y ago
The small size of the consideration is probably not a convincing argument in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_%28legal%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_%28legal%29 Fortunately there are other problems with this situation.
SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
They're also likely to have to refund the entry fee if you refuse to sign the contract: even if they did mention having a secondary contract in the sales contract, they didn't make a good-faith effort to provide reasonable terms (for the reasons mentioned above about legality and compensation), so they failed to uphold any part of their end of the contract and should refund the money; if they didn't mention the second contract in the one you made to pay them, then they absolute owe you a refund for refusing to do the work they promised in exchange for your money unless you agree to a unilateral modification of the terms -- they're probably liable for the losses you incurred by assuming they'd follow their end of the agreement, since a unilateral insistence on changing the terms of the agreement once execution has begun is not an attempt to uphold your side of it; finally, in the case that they want to claim the sale was pending your agreement to those terms, their continuing to hold pending funds now that the sale fell through is simple theft. No matter how the city of Detroit wants to spin their terms contract, they owe the people who decline to sign it a refund on their entry fee.

diydsp 11y ago

My lawyer friend echoes the same concern. A contract is two-way.

bradleyland 11y ago

That was the first thing I thought. Turning over IP and offering indemnification... for what exactly? That indemnification clause is utterly ridiculous in this context. Our company works with a lot of governments, and indemnification clauses of this type are extremely common any time there is software involved. What's crazy about this circumstance is that the participants aren't contractors writing code for the city... Or are they? Based on the indemnification requirement, it seems that's how the city views it. It appears un-enforcable to me (IANAL, but I do deal with this shit a lot). However, just because a contract can't be enforced doesn't mean it won't cause you trouble. I'd walk before I signed a contract like this at a hackathon. No "chance" at a prize is worth this kind of exposure.

sp332 11y ago

The small size of the consideration is probably not a convincing argument in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_%28legal%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_%28legal%29 Fortunately there are other problems with this situation.

SomeStupidPoint 11y ago

They're also likely to have to refund the entry fee if you refuse to sign the contract: even if they did mention having a secondary contract in the sales contract, they didn't make a good-faith effort to provide reasonable terms (for the reasons mentioned above about legality and compensation), so they failed to uphold any part of their end of the contract and should refund the money; if they didn't mention the second contract in the one you made to pay them, then they absolute owe you a refund for refusing to do the work they promised in exchange for your money unless you agree to a unilateral modification of the terms -- they're probably liable for the losses you incurred by assuming they'd follow their end of the agreement, since a unilateral insistence on changing the terms of the agreement once execution has begun is not an attempt to uphold your side of it; finally, in the case that they want to claim the sale was pending your agreement to those terms, their continuing to hold pending funds now that the sale fell through is simple theft. No matter how the city of Detroit wants to spin their terms contract, they owe the people who decline to sign it a refund on their entry fee.