71–80 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the unreasonable length and complexity of these things. I’ve seen shorter contracts for mergers and acquisitions.
The pro tip is pasting such long ToS into NotebookLM and asking it to list e.g. top 5 surprising clauses (if you ask just about surprising clauses it treats you like an idiot and lists everything)
To be fair existence of TOS is suspiring.
The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service , or about setting up competing products. It…
And the way the resteraunt this right is by covering their walls with TOS text like an Egyptian tomb.
IMHO the problem is allowing changes to terms and conditions for existing contracts. If I have a contract with a company, that contract was made under existing T&C. The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. Denying me service if I disagree should not be a valid option. I get this periodically on our overly-computerized car: Here are new T&C, click yes to agree. You can…
Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part. The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.
The key difference, is that the US is many jurisdictions (Federal + 50 states + a lot of others, from counties to cities to territories to MANY others), and the variance amongst those is high.
The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet.
In the US, these things have huge variability. There are well regulated states, and well, the others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part. The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.
This is not true. It is 100% possible to write a contract in Sweden where one of the paragraphs says that you can change it in this and that way. And if we're talking about business to business contracts, it will probably in almost all cases be enforceable, even if you're writing that one party can just announce changes. In fact, I think most business to business contracts have some kind of clause specifying that it…
If you have an agreement that says one party can announce changes, you don't have a contract, because those changes were not agreed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part. The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.
Presumable in Sweeden you can agree to new contract that supercedes the current one? That's all that's (argueable) happening here. To me the insane part is that contracts don't have to be registered with the courts (or some qualified third party) ahead of time. Like each party could show up with their own piece of paper (or not be able to provide it). Which is largely the issue here in that one party is showing up wi…
Yes, of course.
We don't have any rules about contracts needing to be written down or registered or anything of that sort. Even verbal agreement are valid, and you are entering into simple contracts even when you buy something in a store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Sweden the thing that makes something a contract is that you can't change it-- that it has definite provisions that have been agreed and that both parties actually expect the other to hold up their part. The US breaking its contract law to treat non-contracts as contracts is one of the most insane things I've seen a legal system do to itself.
I do not think this is true for Sweden. The key difference, is that the US is many jurisdictions (Federal + 50 states + a lot of others, from counties to cities to territories to MANY others), and the variance amongst those is high. The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to.…
Yes, but Swedish contract law actually is like this. A contract is a specific agreement, it can never be "Oh well, you can add provisions as you like if you send them to me" or "I will pay whatever".
The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service , or about setting up competing products. It…
and you are not allowed to criticize it or write about the size of it or how much meat there is in it or how filling it is to eat the burger.
and you are definitely not allowed to compare it to burgers from other companies.
IMHO the problem is allowing changes to terms and conditions for existing contracts. If I have a contract with a company, that contract was made under existing T&C. The company should not be able to change those conditions without my explicit permission. Denying me service if I disagree should not be a valid option. I get this periodically on our overly-computerized car: Here are new T&C, click yes to agree. You can…
I get emails from time to time that "Policy X has changed and will take a effect in X weeks" so at least I'm given advance notice, and am basically OK with that approach as long as the changes are spelled out clearly and not hidden in hundreds of pages of legalese. Maybe an LLM would help here, and translate what the new changes in terms really means so I can decide whether to continue with the service or not. In general I'm OK as long as I'm given enough notice and it's clear what is happening.
The same thing happens with pricing. What does a company do when they want to increase rates, or change their products? They send out a notification that starting on a certain date, the prices will go up. I don't think anyone objects to that. How is a T&C change different?
The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service , or about setting up competing products. It…
> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. and you are not allowed to criticize it or write about the size of it or how much meat there is in it or how filling it is to eat the burger. and you are definitely not allowed to compare it to burgers from other companies.