Maybe agreeing to disagree is the more sensible and civil route for certain posters within this thread?
Printable View
Maybe agreeing to disagree is the more sensible and civil route for certain posters within this thread?
It wouldn't hold up in trial; but they wouldn't need it to win. Honestly, they wouldn't be stupid enough to even use the ToS at trial over something like that; they can draw out the litigation process and bankrupt me without it. That doesn't mean what they did is legal, it just means the law doesn't matter if you're rich.
Again, you claim to have a degree but offer literally nothing in the way of insight on how a ToS works. You just posture and bluff and say "I have a degree." Make an argument. Explain to all of us how clicking agree means you forfeit your consumer rights. I'd love to hear it.
The funny part is he probably didn't even take the time to bother Googling it, because that's all I did, and if he had he'd find legal precedent of adhesive contracts being held as valid so long as similar services can be found elsewhere, such as in Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court, or Kurashige v. Indian Dunes, Inc.
That's not actually a contract because to be a legally binding contract something must be exchanged. You would have to give him money, goods, or services in return for his work, and at that point it's really just employment innit. I also learned that from a cursory Google search.