1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashZZZZZZZZZZZ 😴
Well, I hate to leave all you sissy's behind but I got to get some shut eye, I really can't remember the last time I got this tired. I'm beat. Besides I'm out of PM's again. garrrrrr. Talk at you latter hound dog. See you Efamef37. Everybody stay out of trouble. Over and out.
G'night Cash
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightOf course, the provision isn't "superfluous for this discussion"; it's the crux of the matter. The user isn't merely saying he can make a binding contract, he's making an affirmative attestation that he is of LEGAL AGE to make a contract. RN completely misses the import of this provision as I have repeatedly pointed out. A minor who makes this affirmation is committing fraud and can't benefit from his fraudulent act.
there is a check off box where you state you are over the age of 13, so the site is saying you must be 14 or over to enter.
Under the TOS it says that you represent that you are of legal age to enter into a binding contract.
As no1 and numerous others have pointed out this would mean that you would need to be at least 18 in many jurisdictions.
You internet like myspace. google, yahoo, facebook, twitter, etc. that provide services to minors.
I'm pretty sure RHP's "expert lawyers" handed Russ and Chris a boilerplate document to use as a TOS - it's very similar to most other sites' on the net. You add in provisions particular to your type of business and that's that.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree that it is boilerplate. Most other sites have similiar language.
Of course, the provision isn't "superfluous for this discussion"; it's the crux of the matter. The user isn't merely saying he can make a binding contract, he's making an affirmative attestation that he is of LEGAL AGE to make a contract. RN completely misses the import of this provision as I have repeatedly pointed out. A minor who makes this affirmatio ...[text shortened]... plate document to use as a TOS - it's very similar to most other sites' on the net.
So now you are arguing that the minor has committed fraud. That's more interesting. That would give RHP the same recission rights that the minor already had.
That may very well be why RHP's lawyers put that language in there.
Originally posted by Red NightI vaguely remember a long time ago a big discussion about putting in the over 13 box. Maybe I can find it; I think it was in Summer 2004.
I agree that it is boilerplate. Most other sites have similiar language.
So now you are arguing that the minor has committed fraud. That's more interesting. That would give RHP the same recission rights that the minor already had.
That may very well be why RHP's lawyers put that language in there.
Originally posted by Red Nightwow you guys are so wrapped up in the legal technicalities and technical legalities that you're forgetting to sling insults at each other. the healing power of the law!😵
I agree that it is boilerplate. Most other sites have similiar language.
So now you are arguing that the minor has committed fraud. That's more interesting. That would give RHP the same recission rights that the minor already had.
That may very well be why RHP's lawyers put that language in there.