Making Others Read YOUR Fine Print — Turning EULAs Around
from the that'll-show-them...-or,-maybe-not dept
With so many annoying end user license agreements (EULAs) out there with impossible fine print that almost no one reads, it appears that some users are “fighting back.” Broadband Reports points to one user who is adding his own fine print EULA on the back of the payment checks he sends in to his broadband provider, noting that in cashing the check, they agree not to cap his broadband. It’s probably not binding… but it does highlight how people are often expected to simply accept all of these EULAs without any chance to negotiate or change the terms.
Comments on “Making Others Read YOUR Fine Print — Turning EULAs Around”
Why isn't it binding?
If the check that someone sends me for $35 can have “fine print” on the back that says something to the effect, “You’re agreeing to the following if you endorse this check,” then certainly putting a so-called-EULA on the back of my checks to my payees seems like it should hold.
Of course, I have to do the same thing that the EULA writers do and offer the opportunity to return the check, which I think I should be able to stipulate that they do at their own cost. Heck, it’s my EULA, right?
Re: Why isn't it binding?
The problem is that you’ve probably already agreed to the service provier’s TOS, which this would conflict with…
Yes, if there were no such agreement in place, it would be binding, but in this case… probably not.
Re: Why isn't it binding?
Don?t forget that your check is not legal tender, and as such, I do not have to accept it as payment.
That means that when I receive your check with an EULA scribbled on it, I am going to chuck it, wait for your accounts due date to pass, and then assign you a late fee? and when you refuse to pay THAT, I am going to contact the credit reporting companies? and your check will not have cleared, so you have no evidence to suggest that I have been paid. Don?t be an ass hole, just pay your bills according to the terms you agreed to – even if you did not bother to read them.
Besides, this isn?t anything new? My dad did this with the child support checks he sent to my mom back in the 80?s? he would send one check every three months or so, and put a note on the back that said something to the effect of: by endorsing and depositing this check the payee acknowledges that all outstanding payments due have been paid in full.
A real charmer my dad? really great guy? damn I have good genes. (/sarcasm)
Re: Re: Why isn't it binding?
My ex-husband just gave me a child support check with the phrase ‘signing fulfills child support agreement’ above where the check should be endorsed. Will that really absolve him of owing me anything, if he cashes it?
Put the fine print on FRONT of the check.
The fine print on front of the check should say that when the user agreed to the vendor’s EULA, s/he made the following exceptions that the vendor is now agreeing to by cashing the check. WHY SHOULDN’T THIS BE JUST AS BINDING as the Eula?
(Be careful to keep a copy of the check, at least pre-sig if you can’t get it post-sig.)
This is a simple issue of contract law ....
As a matter of contract law anything written on the back of the check is not a contractual term and therefore not binding. In this case the contract already exists and one party (the payor in this case) cannot unilaterally amend its terms, terms can only be amended with the agreement of the other party. The payee will argue that the proposed change of term was not brought to its attention in a sufficiently clear manner.