Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 12:41 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Permalink for comment 96941
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-18
"There's nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract - even without their consent"
In US Civil Court, a contract must benefit both parties. If it does not, it is not considered a valid contract. The same goes for any changes to an existing (already signed/agreed to) contract. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up in Civil Court.
However, in this case, it may simple be considered a clarification. This is also a bit tricky. In a Civil case, anything that isn't clear is supposed to go against the party that drafted the contract (MS). For some reason that doesn't hold up as well as it should.