Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 12:41 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Thread beginning with comment 96841
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Monopolist, monopolistic power
by Dinble on Sat 18th Feb 2006 03:27
in reply to "RE: Monopolist, monopolistic power"
"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.




Member since:
2005-11-14
"There's nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract - even without their consent"
There's nothing illegal _in the USA_
In countries where the law was not completely written by corporation lobbysts it ain't so. As I said, changes in italy have to be communicated officially to the other party, which has the option of terminating the contract on the spot.