Paypal's Policy Update "You Can't Sue Us" lol

30 years ago you signed a prenup it meant something. Today, not so much. It used to be if you had an agreement it was worth the paper it was printed on. Today no-matter, a sympathetic judge to one party can freely decide its value based on feel good personal opinions.

If a judge feels that agreement wasn't fair and one party should be entitled to more, the contract gets voided. That never use to happen to the extent it does now.

So if I put some obscure clause in the TOS of this site saying something along the lines of "If you at some later point turn out to be a bonafide "Bad Guy" (as determined by a majority consensus viewing the evidence), then you agree that all interested parties can come to your residence and stone you to death.", then that makes it LEGAL?

Can someone agreeing to something that is not legal (for instance a company deciding at a later point to void your civil and legal rights concerning actions against them and claiming you earlier forfeited all such rights via a blanket policy statement), therefore afterwards make it legal?

Heck, now I'm wondering what my birth certificate might say in the fine print on the back.......

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So if I put some obscure clause in the TOS of this site saying something along the lines of "If you at some later point turn out to be a bonafide "Bad Guy" (as determined by a majority consensus viewing the evidence), then you agree that all interested parties can come to your residence and stone you to death.", then that makes it LEGAL?

Can someone agreeing to something that is not legal (for instance a company deciding at a later point to void your civil and legal rights concerning actions against them and claiming you earlier forfeited all such rights via a blanket policy statement), therefore afterwards make it legal?

Heck, now I'm wondering what my birth certificate might say in the fine print on the back.......

Not sure if these are legitimate questions you're asking or if you're trying to make a point, but you're combining two types of law here: criminal and civil law. Criminal law is prosecuted by the State, so you can't enter into an illegal contract like the example in your first paragraph.

Signing away your right to sue somebody is often put into civil contracts, but that doesn't actually mean that you can't sue them if they fail to uphold their end of the bargain. And that is what is determined by the judge, whether the contract was violated by either party.

For the record, I'm not a lawyer but some of my college classes were about law.

True, we are talking about civil law here.

The law assumes that adults in their right mind can contract agreements between themselves. There are some basic rules to creating contracts,and a number of requirements and exceptions (many of which you are familiar with, such as the capacity of the parties) but many business matters can be decided via contract by the parties and if the contract was appropriately made, most of the time it will stand.

Sometimes, agreements are voided as unconscionable, but that is a case-by-case deal. There is a phrase 'boilerplate' meaning those hundreds of pages of fine print prewritten which you are supposed to sign. Sometimes if the position of the parties is very unequal. signing a boilerplate contract can be held to be unconscionable.

Originally Posted by Teatime

Signing away your right to sue somebody is often put into civil contracts, but that doesn't actually mean that you can't sue them if they fail to uphold their end of the bargain.

In fact, it can mean exactly that. If you agree not to sue but instead to accept the binding decision of an arbitrator, you may have to accept that decision. Arbitration agreements between companies are often quite detailed, with time frames and language stating which party will pay for the arbitration, but they are agreements and many times that agreement will be honored. Many times in such detailed agreements there are detailed consequences of breach, liquidated damages and other clauses so the arbitrator is not arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

If a judge feels that agreement wasn't fair and one party should be entitled to more, the contract gets voided. That never use to happen to the extent it does now.

I think you right; it doesn't happen all the time but it does happen more than it used to. That might offer more flexibility, but at the cost of certainty.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

I wasn't aware that any business could exclude themselves from legal proceedings merely by saying they want it to be so.

In the states they can't. Its more to scare off people.