Absofuckinglutely
If I bought it and got home and found this, I’d return it as I have before. You’re not trapping me into agreeing for anything without the notice on the OUTSIDE of the product packaging. Fuck this
Comment on I dont want to enter a contract when consuming your product..
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That’s not generally allowed in contact law.
Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process abs likely won’t notice it. And it’s not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non- English speaker? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case? Also, they’ll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything.
Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Bosht@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Plus it speaks volumes to the product itself. If they’re trying to pull shit like this there’s no way I’m trusting whatever they’re trying to get me to put in my body.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Yeah, feels like a trick.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
It actually does have legal precident. You know how you can’t read or accept the EULA for software until after you purchase it?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a “license” to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn’t affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It’s a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).
I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that’s a separate issue.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
If they can change their EULA at any time without consent for something you already purchased that should enable the option for a full refund if declined.
Accept the new license or refund.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Agreed
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 16 hours ago
While true, the software put it in your face and forces you to interact with a screen that says “EULA”. I doubt using a consumable as intended will hold any jurisprudence. But then again look who we have appointing judges right now…
buttnugget@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Yep, I was just agreeing with someone else saying this is unenforceable. Just a ridiculous ploy and an attempt to make it precedent.
Taleya@aussie.zone 22 hours ago
All it does is prove to the purchaser that the fuckers don’t trust the basic safety and fitness for use of their product. Spectacular self own.