Hacker News Reader

Comment by alasdair_ | Hacker News Reader

The terms are not a negotiated contract - they are dictated by one side and even if they are read by the purchaser, the implications of the terms may not be obvious. Many/most people will not understand that after paying hundreds of dollars for games, their games could suddenly be taken away from them without recourse.

For a ridiculous example, imagine there was a clause buried in the fineprint that allowed the store owner to charge you $5000 to unlock the game whenever they chose to. Even if it were in the T&C, it would be ruled invalid because it was so unexpected.

Similarly, removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonavlble.

View on HN

> The terms are not a negotiated contract

That doesn't mean they aren't a contract. They're simply a contract where your only options as the buyer are to buy or not to buy.

That said, a unilateral contract like this can be treated somewhat differently by courts. See below.

> removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonable.

As I posted in response to someone else upthread, it would be an interesting case if someone actually did try to take a game store to court on these grounds. Contract law does include general rules about reasonableness, and courts are more likely to apply them for unilateral contracts like these where one party does not have the opportunity to bargain.

Terms are not a contract or a type of contract. Were you instructed to consult your legal team before signing the contract?

What you never signed with a witness and a notary?

So if they put in a term that said you agree to give them your house or 500 you would have to?

Terms of service are the rules outlined by the service provider. Breaking these could get your service cut and you would have a hard time finding a legal recourse.

I agree with your whole opinion on T&C's and abuse by companies, but they are still a contract, mostly because there is no "hard standard" in how a contract can be formed between two parties. Even a verbal agreement can be seen as a "contract" as much as a signed paper.

If I put a piece of tape across the door to your house, and I write "by breaking or removing this tape, you owe me $1000", is that a valid contract? One party shouldn't be able to just make up things that constitute agreement to a contract.

It would be a contract if you agreed to it. Without a meeting of minds and agreement there is no contract.

For anyone who wants to go down the rabbit hole and learn more about this topic, try Googling "eula unconscionability"

There is a concept in contract law where if an agreement is heavily biased in favor of one party and that party has almost all of the leverage in the relationship, flat out refuses negotiation etc. - then a court can find that contract unconscionable and invalidate it.

That sounds like it might apply to a lot of "take it or leave it" software/online ToS and EULAs, but there's very little case law in this area to my knowledge.

Plus if your contract with Steam is invalidated, where does that leave you? It means Steam has no further obligation to you so you still can't access your games.

IANAL

Reply on news.ycombinator.com