Re: "no server" rule

["Robert Krawitz-2" <user=69@nabble.blu.org>]

    Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:09:12 -0400 
   From: Jerry Feldman <[hidden email]> 

   On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:35:58 -0400 
   Robert Krawitz <[hidden email]> wrote: 

   > I wonder if that has ever been challenged legally.  I vaguely recall 
   > reading about a case (on Groklaw?) where that kind of "we can change 
   > terms whenever we like, and you're responsible for constantly visiting 
   > the site and diffing the terms" was considered unreasonable.  In this 
   > case, the early termination fee would probably be even more 
   > unreasonable. 

   Might be interesting to research. Credit card companies routinely 
   change terms, but they always send them to you in the mail.=20 

Yes, and you can also opt out by canceling the card, and there are no 
cancellation fees.  Of course, you have to pay off any balance, but 
you can pay off the balance under the old terms.  When PayPal changes 
its terms, it always sends email and the site always includes the 
specific terms that have changed. 

My recollection is that the case in question had to do with the "we 
can change terms just by changing our web site, and you have to check 
for any changes and figure out what changed".  The court, if my memory 
serves me, ruled that it isn't reasonable to essentially expect people 
to check daily and to figure out what changed from the mess of text. 

This sounds even worse; not only do you have to do that, but if you 
don't like the new terms, you have to pay an early cancellation fee. 
So in principle if Verizon limited you to 100 MB/month, and capped 
your bandwidth at 100 Kbits/sec after the first 1 MB, and you don't 
like it, you have to pay a cancellation fee. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss