Unilateral Terms Altering

[stebbinsd]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Doesn't matter.

You've probably seen the terms of various contracts, particularly with websites and credit cards, that state that they (but not you) can unilaterally alter the terms of the contract at any time, for any reason, with or without notice.

Now, I don't deny for one second that it is legal to do that (I mean, they do it and get away with it, don't they?), but my question is, WHY is it allowed by the courts?

Think about it: Contracts can't just have mutual consideration; they have to have SUFFICIENT consideration. You can't just walk up to your drunk neighbor and go "Hey, that Mercedez looks good. I'll give you this post-it note for it!" They'll laugh you out of the court if you try and sue them for not transfering the title over to you. Why? Because consideration can't just be mutual; it has to be sufficient. In fact, some contracts (such as the example I just gave) can have consideration so insufficient that it is hard to tell if there was any consideration at all.

So, how can this thread's namesake contract, which states that the merchant or service provider can modify the terms of the contract and you're to be bound by them, possibly satisfy the sufficient consideration doctrine? What is the courts' reasoning behind that decision that that clause is physically capable of satisfying that doctrine?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Doesn't matter.

US Law Only! (Yes, it does matter).

Beyond that - This sort of hypothetical rant is really not proper for these forums.

 

[Some Random Guy]

For credit cards, read the part of the contract which specifies what happens when you disagree with their unilateral changes.

For websites, you are generally dealing with licenses to use their content as opposed to contracts. By choosing to only license it with a "may change at any time" model, they are fre to change the license at any time.

However, see the blockbuster case
Website terms unenforceable due to unlimited right to amend ? The Register
where unilateral changes were unenforceable because they could be retroactively applied, as in "I'm taking away your permission today to use the web site last week".

 

[stebbinsd]

For credit cards, read the part of the contract which specifies what happens when you disagree with their unilateral changes.

I don't have my credit card contracts on hand at the moment. Would you be so kind as to tell me some of the most commonly-provided recourses?

For websites, you are generally dealing with licenses to use their content as opposed to contracts. By choosing to only license it with a "may change at any time" model, they are fre to change the license at any time.

Okay, that sounds good at first, but what about those websites that you pay to use? I remember one website (although I don't remember the name) that advertised a free trial, but as I read through the terms of service, to put it in laymen's terms, they could change their mind and charge me before the free trial ended, and they could charge me whatever the hell they wanted to charge me. That was basically the gist of that particular paragraph in the T&C.

However, see the blockbuster case
Website terms unenforceable due to unlimited right to amend ? The Register
where unilateral changes were unenforceable because they could be retroactively applied, as in "I'm taking away your permission today to use the web site last week".

In a nutshell, what I'm inferring from that article is... the US Federal courts have ruled that unilateral modification clauses are now about as enforceable as a contract that takes effect once both parties "have signed on the dotted line."

Eh?

 

[Some Random Guy]

In a nutshell, what I'm inferring from that article is... the US Federal courts have ruled that unilateral modification clauses are now about as enforceable as a contract that takes effect once both parties "have signed on the dotted line."

Nope. They just ruled that you can't make retroactive changes. They did NOT rule that everything else was OK.

Its a matter of reasonableness. Anything that you think is an unreasonable change that you were not informed of, you can argue against in court. THe courts will decide.