Reply to post: Re: So, precedent set?

I bless the reins down on .africa ... Dot-word injunction hits ICANN

SImon Hobson Silver badge

Re: So, precedent set?

> Given that almost every contract has started to contain terms that purport to prevent or limit legal actions against the dominant partner in the contract, are these terms now looking to be invalid?

IANAL, AIUI in English law there is a concept of "meeting of minds". Where a contract was formed by a meeting of minds (ie both parties negotiated on equal terms and reached a mutually acceptable position) then most things go - but where one party is dominant then it can be argued that the contract wasn't formed by a meeting of minds, but imposed by the dominant party in the other and therefore clauses may be challenged.

IMO this is the sort of term that could be considered unreasonable, and if the US has a similar concept then that may well be grounds for having the clause declared unenforceable.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022