Re: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service

Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an agreement being changed?

Sample Contract:
1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.

Later....

Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due, please pay immediately.
Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work. Please send $100 plus interest."

In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.

Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if not acceptable" might make it stick.
I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.

regards,

Drew



Dean Collins wrote:

While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.

 

 

 

Regards,

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).

---

From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service

 

First posted at:  http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html

 

 

"Illusory" terms of service

Wow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the ramifications of it.

I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye.


Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.
A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal.

The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class.

Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.


I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window).

Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.

 

 

 

Regards,

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).

 

 
 _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--  asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz