Would This Be Considered A Valid Contract?

[Jypsy]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? N/A

If the following clause was found in an online contract for an earning opportunity, would it be considered to be valid and binding should a member decide to pursue legal recourse in small claims?

"Company" may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members. Members will be informed of any and all changes to this policy via an email to their pri**** contact email address provided upon signing up with "Company". If any modification is unacceptable to you, your only recourse is to terminate this agreement and forfeit all earnings. Your continued participation in the program following our posting of a change in policy notice or new agreement on our site will constitute binding acceptance to the change.

To clarify more, many PTR (Paid-To-Read) programs have decided to use the part about having no recourse other than to unsubscribe, forfeiting all earnings as a "free way out" so they impose ridiculous and excessive changes, trying to delete members afer they have reached the minimum payout level and have been waiting extraordinary long times for their payouts.

Is it more likely that a judge would find in favor of a member, such as Breach of Contract or is a contract like that invalid from inception?

Thanks, any professional advice is greatly appreciated.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? N/A

If the following clause was found in an online contract for an earning opportunity, would it be considered to be valid and binding should a member decide to pursue legal recourse in small claims?



To clarify more, many PTR (Paid-To-Read) programs have decided to use the part about having no recourse other than to unsubscribe, forfeiting all earnings as a "free way out" so they impose ridiculous and excessive changes, trying to delete members afer they have reached the minimum payout level and have been waiting extraordinary long times for their payouts.

Is it more likely that a judge would find in favor of a member, such as Breach of Contract or is a contract like that invalid from inception?

Thanks, any professional advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, any professional advice is greatly appreciated.

Stay away from these scams.

 

[HomeGuru]

Far away>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*

 

[Jypsy]

Thanks, seniorjudge and HomeGuru but there are hundreds of these programs in existence attracting tens of thousands of people from all over the world. Even though hindsight might be 20/20, and even if some people never get pulled in, there are still thousands who do. Warning people isn't enough because some people may honestly not realize it until they've acquired a good-sized investment of thier time and efforts. Eventually, they are held hostage to their earnings and find themselves having to comply with one-sided contract changes just to have hope of receiving their money. They are encouraged to keep working, they are lied to, they are basically used while these program owners make promises they never keep, or they only pay a few of their more vocal supporters.

I understand people have to exercise due diligence before entering into contracts and business arrangements but once something gets out of control where thousands and thousands of people are targeted and swindled and used, shouldn't there be some kind of help from law enforcement? Many of these members are just average people, they're not uneducated or mentally incapacitated, they're just looking for ways to earn a few dollars.

I guess my questions revolve around trying to find effective means of recourse and if that's not possible then how do we as civilized people, fight the corruption, the proliferation? How do we get these sites closed down so that this doesn't occur generation after generation of internet users?

 

[shortbus]

"Company" may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members.

There's no enforceable contract here. The fact that one party can unilaterally change any terms means they've made an "illusory promise".

 

[Jypsy]

But couldn't the member argue that the implied terms are that they receive payment? In WOOD v. LUCY, LADY DUFF-GORDON, she argued that there were elements of the contract which didn't make it binding, yet the NY Supreme Court ruled that there was an implied promise involved and they honored the contract. From what I gather, the courts have determined that in the presence of "illusory promises" consideration is a condition of good faith and that best efforts should be made to honor the mutual arrangements.

 

[HomeGuru]

But couldn't the member argue that the implied terms are that they receive payment? In WOOD v. LUCY, LADY DUFF-GORDON, she argued that there were elements of the contract which didn't make it binding, yet the NY Supreme Court ruled that there was an implied promise involved and they honored the contract. From what I gather, the courts have determined that in the presence of "illusory promises" consideration is a condition of good faith and that best efforts should be made to honor the mutual arrangements.

**A: huh? And now you playing attorney?

 

[Jypsy]

No. I'm playing advocate and trying to find resolutions.

 

[shortbus]

But couldn't the member argue that the implied terms are that they receive payment? In WOOD v. LUCY, LADY DUFF-GORDON, she argued that there were elements of the contract which didn't make it binding, yet the NY Supreme Court ruled that there was an implied promise involved and they honored the contract. From what I gather, the courts have determined that in the presence of "illusory promises" consideration is a condition of good faith and that best efforts should be made to honor the mutual arrangements.

Wood v. Lady Duff doesn't apply to this situation. That case had to do with implied terms in contracts where there is exclusivity between the parties. Here, you have a form contract which is being sent to many individuals.

 

[Jypsy]

Thank you shortbus but what difference would exclusivity make? Isn't the premise what's important, not the specifics?

 

[shortbus]

One of the 'premises' of contract law is that courts evaluate the overall intention of the parties to be bound to a deal.

Courts are reluctant to void contracts when there is a clear intention to be bound, but there's a narrow technical defect in the drafting. That's the Lady Duff case: the court found an implied term because Lady Duff was trying to have the contract voided on a technicality.

But courts are equally reluctant to impose a contract when there is NOT an intention to be bound. Here, the PTR company sent a form contract out to thousands (?) of people with a sentence providing they could change any of the terms of the contract unilaterally.

However, in situations like this you can still make a claim under promissory estoppel, which can be used where there is no valid contract.

 

[Jypsy]

Thanks again, shortbus. I'm going to do some research on promissory estoppel, and write an article for member's perusal but before I do, is there anything else I should know about that? I really appreciate this help and advice.

 

[seniorjudge]

Thanks again, shortbus. I'm going to do some research on promissory estoppel, and write an article for member's perusal but before I do, is there anything else I should know about that? I really appreciate this help and advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel

Q: is there anything else I should know about that?

A: Yes; it is very hard to use this doctrine to obtain a plaintiff's verdict; especially under the facts you have given.

 

[Jypsy]

Ok, well....one can reasonably conclude that the best defense is education and prevention. That isn't very consoling to the many thousands of people out there who have been scammed but at least I have a little more understanding now of why it isn't wise to enter into these types of contracts. It would still be good if there were more ways in which people could fight back, even if the civil recourse doesn't seem very promising. Too bad the governments around the world couldn't set up some kind of committee which specifically addresses these types of things, where people could report sites like these for suspected tax evasion and other suspected violations. I know the IFCC exists but I don't think most agencies are interested in investigating the Mom & Pop type of scams. It just irritates me that so many of them get away with it. We're sending the wrong messages.

 

[seniorjudge]

Ok, well....one can reasonably conclude that the best defense is education and prevention. That isn't very consoling to the many thousands of people out there who have been scammed but at least I have a little more understanding now of why it isn't wise to enter into these types of contracts. It would still be good if there were more ways in which people could fight back, even if the civil recourse doesn't seem very promising. Too bad the governments around the world couldn't set up some kind of committee which specifically addresses these types of things, where people could report sites like these for suspected tax evasion and other suspected violations. I know the IFCC exists but I don't think most agencies are interested in investigating the Mom & Pop type of scams. It just irritates me that so many of them get away with it. We're sending the wrong messages.

Every con has two participants: a scammer and someone who wants something for nothing. No victims.