Hacker News Reader

Comment by fyi80 | Hacker News Reader

How can a TOS tell someone (a minor) that the person is forbidden to accept an agreement, while simultaneously holding that person subject to that agreement?

It's a paradox in the space-time continuum.

Has any court tested the theory that a minor can be held in violation of a TOS? Contracts entered into by minors are void on their face.

This seems a lot like having a "NO Trespassing" sign in the bathroom of a coffee shop, and then prosecutors charging people who walk in the front door.

View on HN

"You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.' 'But the plans were on display...' 'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.' 'That's the display department.' 'With a torch.' 'Ah, well the lights had probably gone.' 'So had the stairs.' 'But look, you found the notice didn't you?' 'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'" -- Douglas Adams.

It's about more than having holding someone to an agreement they're legally forbidden to accept. It's holding someone to an agreement they don't have facility to read without breaching the agreement. Their terms of service are on the website which the minor cannot read without accessing the website... by which time they are guilty of breach of the terms of service. I don't think I'll never understand the idiocy of American law.

Hmm, it's an interesting problem. Does the ToS cover the ToS page? Am I breaking the ToS by viewing the ToS?

Good point. If you put a final clause on your ToS that said "Reading these terms of service is a criminal offence" could you make criminals out of everyone who reads your ToS? :-)

It wouldn't have to say "Reading these terms of service is a criminal offense". It would merely have to say "Reading these terms of service is a violation of these terms of service".

Well if you're in a real country with real laws (like, y'know everywhere), only governments can make criminal offences, not private individuals.

You can put that "Reading this sentence makes the sky yellow" in your ToS if you want as well. Doesn't make it true.

The point of this article is that breaking a ToS is illegal, so ToS's themselves are de facto laws.

You cannot be held legally liable for reading a contract if it is presented to you. If ToS is meant to be a contract, then no. However, minors cannot consent to a contract, so it would fall on their parents to enforce the contract on the minor.

However, if the ToS is meant to be law, then yes. But courts are known to throw out ToS sections that are written in bad faith. Anything like weev and Aaron are far edge cases with big money and names behind them. Hearst and the DoJ would be highly unlikely to pursue even civil action for breaking the ToS.

Contracts entered into by minors are not void, they are voidable, and only by the minor before the age of majority or a reasonable time thereafter. Minors enter into contracts every day -- millions of them work, for one, and child actors' contracts are in their name, not their parents'.

You could also say that the agreement is void w/r/t a minor, because they don't have capacity to contract, via Statute of Frauds. Of course there are plenty of times when they can contract, but TOS in general seem completely obtuse and not actually conducive of anything worthwhile.

Check out the Oglaf.com landing page for a funny play on this paradox (somewhat NSFW ... really funny, too).

It amounts to:

* If over 18: Select "Over 18".

* If not over 18: Get your parental guardian, who is over 18, to select "Not 18" on your behalf.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com