Is the EULA about to become "unconstitutional"?

[BouncingAyatollah]

One very angry M$ consumer who suffered weeks of problems due to a Service Pack has hinted that the EULA may be about to be declared "unconstitutional". Interesting times!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15001

[Xeen]

Well this is certainly interesting. However I do not think anythings going to happen.

Indeed, when you install software and agree to the EULA, you are actually agreeing that you accept any flaws that the software may have. Since the guy agreed to it, MS can't be held responsible. It's like he signed a contract. Even if the EULA is declared unconstitutional, he still can't get any reward because he agreed to the EULA and installed the software BEFORE the ruling.

The other question I have now is based on what exactly is it going to be declared unconstitutional? I do not remember the constitution mentioning anything about holding businesses accountable for their products' flaws.

[BouncingAyatollah]

I think the idea is that the EULA attempts to override Consumer Rights. In the UK at least a product should be "Of a satisfactory quality", "As described" and "Fit for purpose" (the purpose for which they are acquired). If a consumer finds goods failing any of these categories, under Consumer Rights they are entitled to replacements, refunds and if need be legal action. Therefore if this ruling goes through, all software will be accountable under the same rules, as the EULA cannot override basic Consumer Rights.

As an extra note - I have no idea of the specifics of US Consumer Rights btw but the gist will be the same I am sure.

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by BouncingAyatollah:
In the UK at least a product should be "Of a satisfactory quality", "As described" and "Fit for purpose" (the purpose for which they are acquired). If a consumer finds goods failing any of these categories, under Consumer Rights they are entitled to replacements, refunds and if need be legal action.

Even if this is true for the US, the Microsoft lawyers will spew their bullshit about "software maintenence" and whatnot, and brainwash the government again.  

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by xeen:

Indeed, when you install software and agree to the EULA, you are actually agreeing that you accept any flaws that the software may have. Since the guy agreed to it, MS can't be held responsible. It's like he signed a contract. Even if the EULA is declared unconstitutional, he still can't get any reward because he agreed to the EULA and installed the software BEFORE the ruling.

I am not a lawyer.
From what I understand, if a contract is later ruled illegal or unenforcable, it is not binding.

[savet]

O'Brian is correct.  If an agreement violates state/federal laws, it's worthless.

Take for example contracts with minors.  Regardless of whether the minor knew the terms of the contract, they cannot be held to the terms should they decide to default.

And for a more twisted example...sex with a minor.  It doesn't matter if both parties agree.  Sex with a 12 year old is illegal no matter how much both parties consent...

[Xeen]

quote:Originally posted by Rio:
O'Brian is correct.  If an agreement violates state/federal laws, it's worthless.

Take for example contracts with minors.  Regardless of whether the minor knew the terms of the contract, they cannot be held to the terms should they decide to default.

And for a more twisted example...sex with a minor.  It doesn't matter if both parties agree.  Sex with a 12 year old is illegal no matter how much both parties consent...

You don't understand what I am saying. I'll use your example. Sure, sex with a minor is illegal even if both parties agree. BUT what if an adult had sex with a minor BEFORE there was a law saying it was illegal? Are they gonna go arrest every person who had sex with a minor before the law was passed? NO.

[savet]

But if the EULA already violates consumer rights, as implied in the article, then it is in violation of the law before a any court ruling is made.  The court ruling is just confirming the violation.

So if consumer rights laws were changed and then the EULA was found in violation, you would be correct.

However, taking the consumer rights laws as they are, and assuming the EULA was agreed to after such laws were put in place, if it's found to be in violation, it would be void, or at least the portion in violation would be void.  Most good contracts anymore have a stipulation that allows the remainder of the agreement to remain in effect, and only the parts found to be illegal or unenforcable are removed.

Edits = late at night and half asleep

[ March 31, 2004: Message edited by: Rio ]