Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 458 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#431

Post by handoflixue »

shakna wrote: post #430
handoflixue wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to. If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.

> Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term. Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage. Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is cons…

The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#432

Post by tclancy »

macintux wrote: post #269
tclancy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not inquire about the location of the beef.

I fear that reference may be too dated for this site's dominant demographics.

Agreed, but I had to let it leave the nest on its own. I am of a mind if I make one person laugh a lot it’s better than a polite twitter from the unwashed masses.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#433

Post by joe_mamba »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #427
joe_mamba wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is perhaps the most recent and dramatic case of a solution to gun crime being found. We can't apply the El Salvador solution because what about the human rights of the violent criminals?!

What's strange is that I have never heard a single "human rights expert", humanitarian lawyer, government, NGO, bureaucrat, or global body say a single word about the flagrant and far more wide spread abuses of the human rights of people who should have the basic right to live unmolested by criminals and under a government system that provides reasonable justice. Not a single one. Turns out that none of them are actu…

>What's strange is that I have never heard a single "human rights expert", humanitarian lawyer, government, NGO, bureaucrat, or global body say a single word about the flagrant and far more wide spread abuses of the human rights of people who should have the basic right to live unmolested by criminals and under a government system that provides reasonable justice. Not a single one.

Because those "humanitarian" lawyers, bureaucrats and NGO activists, don't live in high crime areas they advocate for, they instead live in some of the nicest, cleanest, greenest, homogenous, quietest neighbourhoods, suburbs or gated communities that (taxpayer) money can buy.

They virtue signal for open borders, second chances and human rights for criminals, ONLY as long is it's not negatively impacting their own backyard, but try to enter their gated communities without their consent and you see them suddenly believing in borders and law enforcement by force. Try building a DMV, unemployment office, or refugee housing center in their neighborhood and see how they turn into the most harcore NIMBYs ever. They want to write cheques that only other people have to cash. "Rules for thee but not for me." Champagne socialists.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#435

Post by shakna »

handoflixue wrote: post #431
shakna wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable. You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term. Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage. Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is cons…

The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?

I quoted the article. The article itself claims to be an unpublished ruling.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#437

Post by pocksuppet »

mxuribe wrote: post #321
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke, but if I email Sony customer support with an updated terms of service that says the service is free now, is that equally legitimate?

IANAL but i think Sony would have had to *first* fully accept the terms initially, and then a brick (or many other delivery mechanisms used to convey "notice") with updated terms i guess would be weirdly acceptable...however, other laws would be broken since its, you know, property damage. But what a story that would be! lol :-) I hate all these TOS that always favor a company...but what if alot of society started hu…

Do we remember that time that a person altered the terms of a credit card contract and the bank signed it, and then sued the bank for not following those terms and won?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#438

Post by pocksuppet »

wat10000 wrote: post #303
palmotea wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship. I think you're absolutely right morally, but I think you've made a pretty important technical error: they're not abusive because "only one party needs to abide...by the contract", they're abusive because only one party can unilaterally change the deal . The companies that make these "contracts" can actually fo…

There are plenty of other abusive aspects besides the fact that they can be changed unilaterally. What I really don't understand is how it's supposed to be a fundamental part of contract law that there's a "meeting of the minds" where both parties agree to the same thing, and there are these click-through agreements that nobody reads, and everybody knows that nobody reads them, but they're still enforceable. I get wh…

This is true and for this reason sometimes TOS are not very effective in court.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#439

Post by pocksuppet »

anonym29 wrote: post #415
xnyan wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that a social contract is a concept and not literal contract. The actual reality behind "the social contract" is simply that people have the capability to act in ways that can and do affect other people. Because of this, most people find that it's beneficial to moderate our actions in relation to other people based on their preferences.

I'm referring to very real obligations that we are all held to under the justification of "the social contract" such as taxation and being drafted into military service, not social niceties. We are held to these obligations as seriously and as legally as we are held to real contracts, but unlike the bedrock that constitutes the basis for the legitimacy of all real contracts, these obligations are imposed upon us with…

That's not the social contract. That's the government trying to trick you into thinking bombing Iran is part of the social contract.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#440

Post by officeplant »

ericmcer wrote: post #368
tedggh wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an avid reader and outdoors enthusiast, I feel there’s a lot of value on “wasting” time with a movie or limited series. Absolutely, there are so many better things to do and experience than watching TV, but no one should be stressing out about maximizing their time doing them. In fact, going against that mindset once in a while, and allowing yourself to not do the thing you think you should be doing, is an experie…

Seriously you can have a very pure experience interacting with media. I did a mushroom trip ~5 years ago and was having a not great time walking around outside. Cars, other people, sun, bugs etc. were all not sitting right. I went home and watched "Life in Colour", an Attenborough documentary about amazing uses of color in animals. It was a top experience and I still remember scenes from it years later. Anyway don't…

Drugs and Attenborough night is basically my university experience. Fantastic combo.
Post reply on HN