I find it hard to believe because (a) the company stated that there was a contract; and (b) the poster was wishy-washy about what happened during the registration process, meaning it's very possible that "I Agree" was clicked somehwere, or that contract terms were otherwise overlooked.
Regarding (a), it would be a major no-no for the company to charge a fee based on a contract that didn't exist. That's asking for a major lawsuit, and a court would probably come down very hard on the company. I just doubt the company is that stupid, though I admit it is possible.
Regarding (b), most of us click right through contracts, especially when we're eager to get services up and running. It doesn't matter that the poster didn't use the CD. The company probably has a backup method of getting the contract into the mix, and that method would probably involve the online registration process.
Oh, absolutely. I certainly don't claim that the company is operating according to the terms of the contract - I just can't believe there wasn't some sort of contract "agreed to" in some sort of way.
Whether the company is abiding by the contract, and whether the contract itself is even enforceable, are other questions entirely.
From what I remember from contracts class, however, courts generally hold consumer contracts like this enforceable unless they contain something significantly beyond the expectation of a reasonable consumer (this is serious paraphrasing - I don't remember the actual rule). So, for example, you buy a car and the fine print says the dealer is not liable if it dies after 1/4 mile. No reasonable car buyer would expect a clause like that to be in their contract, and no reasonable buyer would agree to it. Courts would generally hold that clause unenforceable. Cancellation fees, on the other hand, are pretty standard. Unless they're really disproportionate to the cost of the service, my completely unofficial guess is that they're enforceable.
Of course, to the extent I'm accurate here, this is only U.S. law. I don't know the relevant differences in Canadian contracts law.
The poster said, "I had their machine manually registered through a web-interface (which did not indicate contracts at that time, I am not sure about now)."
I don't really know what that means. If he's saying he's not sure if there was a contract indicated, then I'd put money down that there was. Service businesses such as ISPs don't really let the contracts slide these days. It's very hard for me to believe that there wasn't a contract in there somewhere.
But there's also a duty to read. If the contract was presented to them, either in the documentation or through some sort of "I Agree" dialog, they have a duty to read it. If they negligently skipped past the contract language, they can't blame anyone but themselves.
It's hard for me to believe an ISP wouldn't present the language in somehow. It may be sneaky, but unless it's unconscionable, it's probably legally binding.
It's much more likely that they understand the distinction (or the possibility that one exists), but they're trying to shoehorn media into the current legislative definition for software so they can start the tax sooner rather later.
Give people some credit. To the extent you label a group of people as this or that before really understanding their context, you come off as the ignorant one.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of this law, the question of what online rights we really have is still up in the air. There must be rights to begin with for any erosion of them to take place.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yahoo have decided to do the same thing...."
"Yahoo" is a single entity.
I find it hard to believe because (a) the company stated that there was a contract; and (b) the poster was wishy-washy about what happened during the registration process, meaning it's very possible that "I Agree" was clicked somehwere, or that contract terms were otherwise overlooked.
Regarding (a), it would be a major no-no for the company to charge a fee based on a contract that didn't exist. That's asking for a major lawsuit, and a court would probably come down very hard on the company. I just doubt the company is that stupid, though I admit it is possible.
Regarding (b), most of us click right through contracts, especially when we're eager to get services up and running. It doesn't matter that the poster didn't use the CD. The company probably has a backup method of getting the contract into the mix, and that method would probably involve the online registration process.
Oh, absolutely. I certainly don't claim that the company is operating according to the terms of the contract - I just can't believe there wasn't some sort of contract "agreed to" in some sort of way.
Whether the company is abiding by the contract, and whether the contract itself is even enforceable, are other questions entirely.
From what I remember from contracts class, however, courts generally hold consumer contracts like this enforceable unless they contain something significantly beyond the expectation of a reasonable consumer (this is serious paraphrasing - I don't remember the actual rule). So, for example, you buy a car and the fine print says the dealer is not liable if it dies after 1/4 mile. No reasonable car buyer would expect a clause like that to be in their contract, and no reasonable buyer would agree to it. Courts would generally hold that clause unenforceable. Cancellation fees, on the other hand, are pretty standard. Unless they're really disproportionate to the cost of the service, my completely unofficial guess is that they're enforceable.
Of course, to the extent I'm accurate here, this is only U.S. law. I don't know the relevant differences in Canadian contracts law.
The poster said, "I had their machine manually registered through a web-interface (which did not indicate contracts at that time, I am not sure about now)."
I don't really know what that means. If he's saying he's not sure if there was a contract indicated, then I'd put money down that there was. Service businesses such as ISPs don't really let the contracts slide these days. It's very hard for me to believe that there wasn't a contract in there somewhere.
But there's also a duty to read. If the contract was presented to them, either in the documentation or through some sort of "I Agree" dialog, they have a duty to read it. If they negligently skipped past the contract language, they can't blame anyone but themselves. It's hard for me to believe an ISP wouldn't present the language in somehow. It may be sneaky, but unless it's unconscionable, it's probably legally binding.
Give people some credit. To the extent you label a group of people as this or that before really understanding their context, you come off as the ignorant one.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of this law, the question of what online rights we really have is still up in the air. There must be rights to begin with for any erosion of them to take place.