26

You have read it: legally It doesn’t matter if you haven’t read it in fact. At law, you have. Therefore you cannot avoid obligations or consequences by saying “ I didn’t read it”. It’s an extension of the common law principle that if you affix your ‘mark’ to a document you were acknowledging that you understood it and would abide by it: even if your mark ...


7

The only consequence of not reading and understanding the TOS, or any contract, is that you might unintentionally violate that contract, because you did not understand what the contract requires you to do. Or, the other party might act in a legal way that you (wrongly) thought was not possible under the contract. For example, a TOS may say that you can't ...


6

Offer and Acceptance For a contract to be a contract there must be an intention on both parties to create legal relations - this is usually considered in terms of an offer and acceptance. When Website Co makes an offer to the world, you accept it by clicking the ToS acknowledgement and using the service. This is explicit acceptance of the offer. The ToS ...


5

You can have agreements that are not contracts As such, there are not legally enforceable as contracts but may be enforceable under non-contract law. Examples of such non-contractual agreements include social agreements, statutory duties, memorandums of understanding, agreements to distribute cocaine etc. However, that’s not what you have here “No ...


4

If such a case came to court, the court would presumably rule that merely publishing the advertising could not be considered to be doing something "commercial". (Otherwise the contract would be absurd, as the question points out.) The court would therefore define "commercial" as some act beyond merely displaying the advertising -- perhaps charging for the ...


3

There is no significant difference between the two and it is simply a matter of (modern) legal writing style. Traditionally, contracts were always written in the third person, but starting sometime in the late 20th century (if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say sometime in the 1980s), the innovation of writing in the first and/or second person was developed ...


2

The first defense would be to read the contract and see what is required of the customer. If you do not understand what 30*12 means, you should not sign the contract until you get it spelled out. If you are required to pay 100% of "the premium", you need to find out what that amount is. If the contract requires you to pay a million dollars for an apple or ...


2

Changing the document is perfectly legal, this is called negotiation. Deliberately hiding that you changed the document would make any contract formed on that basis void and, depending on who and where you are could put you in breach (and liable to prosecution) of consumer protection laws. Copyright exists in the document (jointly if you both authored it), ...


1

by not fully reading and understanding these agreements, am I in violation of these terms and the agreement? No. A contract is an exchange of considerations (aka benefits). The sole act of reading the terms of an agreement gives no benefit to the counterparty, whence reading and understanding them is not part of the actual contract. Consequently, not ...


1

Yes, they remain valid However, the vast majority of contracts allow the innocent party to terminate them if the other party commits an 'insolvency event' like appointing an administrator. This is typically an active step that the innocent party must take; it doesn't automatically flow from the insolvency event. In addition, a company in administration is ...


1

Short Answer: No, it cannot disclaim a contract of adhesion. Long Answer: (I ask because I increasingly see in advertising or promotion that a company says that you can have their service without a contract and I'm dubious.) Most legal words have more than one meaning depending upon the context. The term "contract" is no exception. In this context,...


1

As a general rule you are bound by all terms of a contract, even those that you do not read. I can imagine a case where the print is sufficiently fine or hidden to not be considered part of the contract - indeed, some statutes expressly require certain kinds of language in certain kinds of contracts to be in "conspicuous" print to be enforceable and define ...


1

Mandatory arbitration clauses specify a particular type of dispute resolution, excluding resort to the court system. A class arbitration waiver prohibits more than one similarly situated person from joining forces - in arbitration - to pursue their claims together. The former may exist without the latter, though this is less common than before the holding ...


1

The central question, as I now understand it, is about WD's position that they are the seller of record, and the contract is between them and you. The complication is that usually, you don't go to WD itself and buy their product, you buy from an authorized distributor / reseller. It would thus seem that you are buying from Big Buy, not WD, and whatever ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible