this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
514 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2981 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago (5 children)

So these things keep appearing in contracts but everyone seems to say they're totally unenforceable so... Why do they keep appearing in contracts?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 61 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If it's not illegal to add, the only risk is bad press coverage, and it might prevent someone from suing in the first place because they don't know their rights.

[–] Djtecha@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Except in several states if any of the contract is invalid it all is.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In the United States where TikTok is based, contracts can include "severability clauses" that state that in the event any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the other parts are still good

[–] 520@kbin.social -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Uhhh tiktok is based in China

[–] IHateRedditAndSpez@programming.dev 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

it's owned by a Chinese company, but TikTok itself is based in the US

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't there a big hoohar about that a couple of years ago which meant they had to move?

[–] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Corporate:'I'm sorry you were looking for an issue with tik tok. the problem is. tik tok is not the issue.'

due to dividends untold tik tok just money guns politicians in the cooter till they spazzin...

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Wasn't there a big hoohar about that a couple of years ago which meant they had to move?

My Comment In gest " we investigated ourselves and found there to be nothing wrong, also we gave money to policy makers."

did you forget what you typed above? was my comment so far left field?

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea what the "due to..." sentence means.

[–] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

due to dividend untold...due to money with unlimited wallet depth.

that better?

[–] lhx@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

That’s not a common thing in American contracts. Severability clauses take care of that.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is that true? I can't find any source for it, except very specific cases where the language and contents of the contract matter.

[–] jeansburger@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

IANAL; However Usually the contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if some parts of that contract are null and void the rest of it stands minus the parts that are illegal. Does that mean those clauses are also null and void depending on locality? Again IANAL, but I believe it's pretty settled contract law at least in the US.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

We need legislation to fix this. Something like "should a contract drafted by a lawyer include clauses that they knew or should have known to be unenforceable or void, the entire contract shall be unenforceable by the drafting party"

[–] toned_chupacabra@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

Because sooner or later, some judge will decide it is enforceable.

Plus it serves as a deterrent for some from even filing a suit with the risk of it getting thrown out and them out thousands of dollars in legal fees.

[–] Colorcodedresistor@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

to cover their asses. It's like seizure warnings on video games. it should go without saying but. sadly...it has to be said. if a case does arise, judges usually create a 'quasi' contract that's usually modified to be fairer for both parties...usually...😬

[–] UnityDevice@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

I'm guessing this might be a pre-emptive response to all the Snapchat lawsuits. Basically, parents are suing Snapchat because their kids talked to drug dealers using it.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Because enough people will read it without consulting a lawyer and never do so that pays for itself before the inks dry.