Bot issues

[Theodric]

Maybe agreeing to disagree is the more sensible and civil route for certain posters within this thread?

[Darkobra]

I never said I was an expert; you don't need to be an expert to know the absolute basic tenets of contract law.

Exactly! Now you understand! If you sign a contract, you agree to it! Absolutely basic! If you disagree, you go elsewhere!

Signed, an expert.

GG.

[Goji1639]

Which one is it? Would it not hold up in trial and you'd win or would you not win?

There's no real reason to continue this as a chain of discussion with you. I'm the one that "took that law class" and got my degree in music, contracts and legal paraphrasing to protect my self-employment. You just keep spewing what you Googled once upon a time. Bet you're one of those people that shout "Freedom of Speech" at everything.

Now, I know you've not taken any classes. I know you don't have a further education. You don't cite sources and you create strawman fallacies to enforce YOUR point. But your opinion isn't fact. It's not law. I also find it amusing that you're arguing with someone that spent four years studying this but you Googled it one time. You have to know how this is going to go for you.

If you got a problem with the ToS, stop playing the game and take it to court. We'll see which one of us is right. The fact that you won't means you know the answer to that already.

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.

[Goji1639]

Exactly! Now you understand! If you sign a contract, you agree to it! Absolutely basic! If you disagree, you go elsewhere!

Signed, an expert.

GG.

My brother signed a contract I drew up that says he's my slave for life because he lost a bet. Is that legally binding, or is contract law OBVIOUSLY more complicated than that?

Enlighten us, expert.

[Doozer]

Maybe agreeing to disagree is the more sensible and civil route for certain posters within this thread?

Oh look, my shadow. I was wondering when you would show up. Vague as always, how safe.

[Theodric]

Oh look, my shadow. I was wondering when you would show up. Vague as always, how safe.

Huh? Your shadow? I'm not sure what you're on about. Some elaboration would be appreciated.

[Doozer]

Huh? Your shadow? I'm not sure what you're about.

Cute. As you were, then.

[Theodric]

Cute. As you were, then.

...well, alright then. I'm still not sure what you're on about, though I imagine that if it were important then you'd be providing additional information. Or is this some sort of forum game that I'm unaware of? Haha!

[Doozer]

...well, alright then. I'm still not sure what you're on about, though I imagine that if it were important then you'd be providing additional information. Or is this some sort of forum game that I'm unaware of? Haha!

As you were, I said.

[TitaniumVulpes]

You just keep spewing what you Googled once upon a time.

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.

My brother signed a contract I drew up that says he's my slave for life because he lost a bet. Is that legally binding, or is contract law OBVIOUSLY more complicated than that?

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.