• Xhieron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    None of these are (speaking generally) legal requirements of an agreement in the US.

    Source: Am lawyer who writes EULAs for a living.

    There are plenty of good arguments for why a particular EULA might be legally problematic, but “no signature, no contract!” isn’t one.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yup, my understanding of contract law is that there must be a mutual agreement accompanied by a exchange of any thing of value.

      I would argue that since you typically pay for and receive the software before being asked to agree to the EULA, there is no exchange accompanying the agreement and thus it is not a contract.

      I have also heard of laws that explicitly limit what EULAs can accomplish because it’s common knowledge that nobody reads them.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The minimum requirement for something to be a legal contract is a signature. You can’t just write something on a piece of paper and say “oh this is legally enforceable, no I don’t have any evidence, go away”.

      And you’d have an extraordinarily hard time proving that someone clicked “I agree”. Just because companies are prepared to pay to have EULAs written doesn’t mean they’re actually legally enforceable.

      • Xhieron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nope. You’re still wrong, but it’s not worth the trouble. I hope you never have to learn the hard way. Take it easy.