Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> That's not how EULAs work, so far the only decision about EULAs not being binding is when they prohibit you from reselling the software.

I can write a EULA that requires you to sign over the rights to your firstborn child, your soul to the devil, and any other nonsense that I could come up with[0].

That doesn't mean that it's actually legally enforceable. Certain clauses have been deemed nonenforceable by law in contracts[1], so just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's valid.

Also, just because it hasn't been deemed nonenforceable previously doesn't mean that it is valid either; it has to be tested (as with all law).

That doesn't give a definitive answer either way, except to say that just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's permissible, either morally (subjective) or legally (objective, or at least "objective").

[0] http://www.out-law.com/page-10929

[1] The ones that people on this site may be most familiar with are noncompetes and/or invention assignments (in certain states - these particular examples are actually more hazy than most people think, but that's a separate matter). Other extreme examples would be contracts that make a person the legal property of another person (e.g. in many/most countries, you cannot enter into "consensual slavery" with a legally binding contract).

There's also the question of whether an unsigned post-purchase EULA constitutes a legally binding contract at all.

This is a bit tricky, though! The Origin EULA is not necessarily post-purchase.

It is, if you buy the disk, install the game and then click through. It ain't if you download Origin, install, accept the EULA and then buy a game.

Still, it is questionable whether a contract that is rarely read and can be changed at whim is a contract in some legislations at all. This is still a HUGE open topic.

Courts have agreed on them being legally binding several times. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses

When they haven't found them legally binding, they've generally either been simply ridiculous or deceiving.

OP was saying in some other countries these clauses would not be legally binding, regardless. Your link only shows US court cases.

Certain clauses will be unenforceable, obviously. But this isn't about enforcing, this is about you granting them permission to do something. After that you'll have really hard time in court trying to argue that they shouldn't have been doing it.

The point is that in many countries, you can't agree to give others permission to do certain things. The court will simply throw out any clauses which would try to permit these things.

Even in the USA, you can't sell yourself into slavery for the rest of your life, as an example of a contract that might be invalid. Most other countries simply have more consumer rights which disallow even more forms of contract.

So... tell us... when was the last time you looked at how student loans work?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com