A breath of sanity
29 Jul 2007 02:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Contracts can't be changed online without notice, court rules -- Companies must notify customers before changing terms.
How hard was that.
The court [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] said that because a contract was an agreement between two parties, one of the parties couldn't change it unless the other party agreed to the change.
How hard was that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-29 10:35 pm (UTC)Of course, it would be even nicer to also have a ruling that requires new contract versions to be sent to people not just as a huge blob of text but also as an easy-to-understand diff that allows you to see exactly what changed. c.c
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-29 11:41 pm (UTC)They then said that they could, but when I pointed out it wasn't in their contract when they said it was, they changed the contract a minute later.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 01:36 am (UTC)You know... my view is it is a very ... very... sad matter that such questions even have such room for debate.
never even a drop of KY offered by big business...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 01:37 am (UTC)If I agree to a contract which explicitly allows the other party to modify the contract without providing me notice, is that contract still valid?
If the contract stipulates that if any part of the contract is deemed to be unenforceable that doesn't change the validity of the other terms of the contract, is the contract still enforceable?
If the contract changed at some point and neither party kept a copy of it because the on-line version was to become the post-facto agreement, whose side of the law will a dispute fall on?
Does this apply to off-line credit card terms of agreement when changes to the contract aren't agreed to?
I'm not intending for you to answer these questions, of course... I'm sure contract lawyers would have a difficult time with them now.
And of course, a lawyer's answer is always... "It depends..."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 03:00 am (UTC)There was a case a few years back where formula one racers were signing a waiver of liability when they accepted tires from a particular company ... after one died due to tire failure, his heirs successfully sued the company on the grounds that the waiver was improper. As far as I know it's still winding through appeals, and I don't remember the specific arguments. I'd guess that the modification without notification clause is in a similar limbo right now. If that holds up, I'd guess that the valid contract would be the last one both parties agreed to, less that one clause. I don't remember seeing any contracts in the last few years without a severability clause.
If there's no copy of an older contract, I'd think it would be difficult to use it as the basis for anything. Not impossible, just difficult.
I'm not a lawyer, and those are indeed just guesses :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 04:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 07:12 am (UTC)Most CC have a clause where the bank (and usually the consumer) can close the line of credit with thirty days notice, and most contracts have similar outs. If you opt-out of the changes to the contract, that clause allows the contract to be closed.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 08:28 pm (UTC)The SCC decided that this violated the worker's right to bargain. Why didn't it violate basic contract law? Well - it did! But the BC Liberals just passed a law that made it legal.
[It has to be noted, the BC Liberal Party has no affiliation with the federal Liberal Party. In fact they're mostly made of Reform and SoCreds who have been pushing a pro-business, anti-labour, right-wing agenda.]