Is it necessary to explicitly disclaim warranties on &quot;private&quot; sales? When people in Germany and Austria sell their own second-hand goods (used clothing, toys, bicycles, etc.) via online classified ads or auctions, they almost always include a statement explicitly marking the sale as &quot;private&quot; and disclaiming any warranty and the possibility of returning the item for an exchange or refund. In German, this is often worded along the lines of &quot;Privatverkauf, keine Gewährleistung und Rücknahme.&quot; Does including this disclaimer confer any legal protection on the seller, or is it simply done as a courtesy to the buyer, or is it one of those bits of legalese that the lay public unthinkingly reproduce in the mistaken belief that it is somehow required? I am specifically interested in the case of Austria but would also be interested to know the situation in Germany, since in my experience this boilerplate text is ubiquitous and identical in both countries.
germany Yes, such clauses are common and useful. § 437 BGB describes the rights of the buyer in case of defects, such as reducing the purchase price, demanding cure, or revoking the contract. But these options only exist “unless otherwise specified”. That means an individual contract can exclude these rights (commonly called a Gewährleistungsausschluss). There are, of course, some limitations to the right to disclaim warranties. The disclaimers are ineffective if the seller keeps a known defect secret. The disclaimers cannot absolve the seller from all liability. While disclaimers can be part of individual contracts, they cannot be part of pre-formulated general terms and conditions (Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen, AGB) since they would disproportionally disadvantage one party. The relevant limits are given in § 309 BGB. Thus, such warranty disclaimers are common in private sales, but not generally possible in a B2C context. There is however some debate how a warranty disclaimer should be phrased properly. Your phrasing “private sale, no warranties or returns” might not be effective e.g. if its pre-formulated nature gives its the character of AGB, or if the unqualified disclaimer of warranties is construed as an invalid attempt to disclaim liabilities that cannot be disclaimed. It might also be worth discussing what a “defect” is in this context. The sold goods have qualities that the parties agreed to, or that follow from the general purpose of the goods. If the goods do not feature these qualities, the goods are defective and (by default) the buyer can ask the seller to fix this, for example by withdrawing from the contract. In retail, it is also common to accept returns of non-defective items. But such returns are entirely a matter of goodwill and do not have to be disclaimed.
Generally not. There is a notion in copyright law called the first-sale doctrine in which after a particular copy of a copyrighted work is legitimately sold, the purchaser can sell, lend, lease, give away, or otherwise dispose of the copy as he sees fit. Copyright does not give the copyright holder exclusive rights to authorize resales. See 17 U.S.C. § 109 for the relevant US law; in other countries the same principle is sometimes called exhaustion of rights. There are limits to the doctrine. In the US, it does not allow for for-profit software rental (for most software) or musical record rentals. Moreover, software companies noticed the part where the doctrine applies to a transfer of title (i.e. an actual sale). If you read a typical software EULA, it is generally quite explicit that the software was licensed to you instead of sold; this is why. Courts in the US have often enforced these provisions (particularly if the license imposes limits like "you can't resell it"); European courts have, as far as I know, been far less willing to accept that argument. However, as a general rule resale is specifically not forbidden by copyright.
Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the Berne Convention which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t). Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found? Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives. The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly. See above. The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway. They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so. While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it. The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether. Not relevant at all. As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image. You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter. The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.
For a contract (including ToS) to be valid, one of the things it must have is "legality of objects". That is, if the contract purports to require anything that is unlawful in the jurisdiction then (barring a severance clause) it is not a contract. In common law countries, the starting point is that people are free to contract for and about anything they like - a contract is simply a mechanism for exchanging value between the parties on whatever terms they wish. However, judges and legislatures have decided that there are some things you cannot trade and some terms that are unconscionable or against the public interest and these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction*. For example, a contract is not legal in any jurisdiction if its terms seek to exclude the intervention of the courts - this is against public policy. So for example, a binding arbitration clause requiring the parties to accept a private arbitrator's decision as final excludes the courts, yes? Well, in Australia, yes, such clauses if used in a contract between parties with different bargaining power (like a Telco and its customers) are invalid because they prevent the weaker party pursuing a class action. However, they are perfectly legal in the United States because the SCOTUS has determined that the customer can persue litigation after arbitration is finished so this doesn't impede the courts. These are essentially the same laws interpreted by the courts so that they have totally opposite effects. So this might lead you to think that you'll put one in - it'll be OK in the US and Australians will represent such a tiny share of your market that you don't care if I can't enforce my ToS there. Except, if your website is visible by Australians, you have just exposed yourself to a government fine of up to AUD 5,000,000 (say USD 3,000,000) per day for breach of Australian Consumer Law. As a general guide (which is very stereotypical), US jurisdictions are the most permissive in the rights they will allow their citizens to give up: the US attitude is that everyone is free to make the best deal they can. European jurisdictions are the least permissive in this regard: most European countries follow a more social welfare state model and the citizen needs protecting from themselves. Commonwealth countries tend to be more in the middle.
How Are Liability And Insurance Matters Usually Disclosed? Normally, in a car sharing arrangement, you must establish a membership or account with the car sharing firm that includes all of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties (at least by reference to a document that you acknowledge that you have had an opportunity to read), often in connection with downloading an app necessary to use the service. I also strongly suspect (as a comment below indicates) that if you dug around enough on the firm's webpage that a link to the relevant terms and conditions could be found, even if it wasn't in the most obvious place. But, this information will often not be on the firm's main landing page of their website, and can instead often only be reached with multiple clicks and/or drop down menus. Sometimes this is called a &quot;terms of service&quot;, sometimes this is called a &quot;master agreement&quot;, sometimes it is called a &quot;membership agreement&quot; or &quot;account agreement&quot;. My list of names for this agreement is not exhaustive. Often these terms are also described elsewhere in simplified form, such as a &quot;how to&quot; brochure, or information that is posted on the interior of the vehicle itself or in a sleeve of documents in the car. Usually, in the course of the sign up process there would typically be a box to click and a link or scrollable portion of the screen at which you can review all of those terms and conditions which are the terms of the contract. What Must Advertising Say And Why? It is not generally necessary for the advertising itself to disclose every term and condition and detail of the arrangement. Generally speaking, an advertisement is considered merely an &quot;invitation to make an offer&quot; to enter into a contract, rather than an offer which can be accepted directly and form a contract. Of course, a particular jurisdiction's legislature certainly has the power to require that a car sharing company disclose liability and insurance information in a particular fashion set forth in a statute or regulation, if that jurisdiction's legislative body chooses to do so. Even when these issues are mentioned in advertising (even when some disclosure is required by law in adverising), usually this would be in the form of a sentence that incorporates another document by reference like &quot;Additional terms and conditions, including terms and conditions related to liability and insurance, that can be found at . . . . apply.&quot; This is due to the practical reality that TV and radio ads are usually just 15-60 seconds allowing about 25-100 words or perhaps a few more if the announcer speaks quickly, and that ads in print or on a screen also typically have room for only a very small amount of text. Websites, in principle, provide an effectively infinite amount of capacity to host content, but considerations of ease of website use and the need to make the landing page striking for marketing purposes (as well as the need to make websites mobile user friendly when that is the only way that many Internet users can access the web) usually relegates the legal terms of the agreement to less attention grabbing locations. Often, these terms are disclosed more conspicuously when the terms and conditions change materially, something that often has its own little PR campaign accompanying it. Unilaterally Imposed Contracts of Adhesion One reason that disclosure isn't such a huge issue is that car share agreements are almost always mass produced, not up for negotiation, &quot;contracts of adhesion&quot; that only senior management of the firm has the authority to modify. In the case of these intangible contractually agreed services, the terms of the agreement are more akin to a non-negotiable product design than to the paradigmatic haggled legal agreement between parties. Thus, a customer has only two choices. Use the service according to the standard terms, or don't use the service. Given this reality, the average buyer of the services relies upon the market place rejecting contracts of adhesion with bad terms, upon testimonials (good and bad) from prior users of the service, and upon media publicity for notorious terms or incidents that makes it look like the business doesn't treat it customers well, to keep the agreements reasonable, rather than upon individualized decisions to use or not use the service based upon a detailed review of the contract terms. There are legal doctrines pertaining to contracts of adhesion that invalidate terms that are unconscionable or not within the reasonable expectation of a consumer unless those terms of conspicuously disclosed. A classic example, for example, would be that a car share agreement that imposed extraction of a kidney as a fine for being one days late in paying an invoice would be void as a matter of law, even if the referenced document said so in bold large face type and the customer clicked a box acknowledging having read the agreement. What Happens If There Is No Agreement Or Disclosure? If there was never a step at which the terms and conditions were disclosed or accepted, then the default rules of law pertaining to personal property leasing, together with the laws pertaining to automobile accidents and insurance (both statutory and case law) in the jurisdiction in question. In almost all cases, liability to third parties for accidents is generally a matter of tort law or statute imposed by the government, rather than being something that can be modified by agreement. Also, usually the government imposes minimum insurance requirements and the owner of the car also has an incentive (and often a legal requirement) to have car insurance in force. In the United States, the default rules of law pertaining to personal property leasing, are set forth in Article 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every U.S. State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and each self-governing U.S. territory with its own internal laws. In countries Europe or Latin American or Asia known as &quot;civil law&quot; countries (i.e. in those countries outside the British common law tradition, the Islamic law legal tradition, tribal or clan or caste law, or legal systems with communist regime roots established in the 20th century), the equivalent default rules of law (governing personal property leases, contracts to provide services, leases and insurance) would be contained in either a civil code or a commercial code of that country in most cases. In common law countries, the contractual agreements tend to be longer than the default provisions of law are skinnier. In civil law countries, the reverse is true. A hybrid of these two approaches which also limits the need of customers to monitor contract terms is the regulatory model commonly used in the insurance industry in the United States takes the reality that contracts of adhesion are the norm and gives it a regulatory twist. In this hybrid model, all of the boilerplate language of every insurance contract down to the last word of non-customized or only semi-customized language, and often fee schedules as well, must be substantively improved by a state agency that regulates insurance. In these models, a public official negotiates the terms of the contracts with the firms, subject to intervention in and participation in the process by industry associations and non-profits or interested individuals on behalf of consumers or other interested parties. In these hybrid systems, the approved contract language which can't be modified in the boilerplate language by either the firms or the customers, is on file with the regulatory agency and provides constructive notice to all parties in much the same way as a statute or government regulation. If not enough material terms of the agreement (e.g. the rental rate) were disclosed to form a contract, then there would be no enforcement contractual arrangement involved in the car share and the car share company would have to rely on the law of unjust enrichment to recover the fair market value of the services provided in each case, which as a practical matter, wouldn't be viable as a business model. Distinctions Between The Two Kinds Of Car Sharing Arrangements There is some ambiguity in the question because there are a couple main types of car sharing arrangements. One is more like a rental car and you drive the vehicle yourself (Car2Go is one of them). In this case, the firm typically provides car insurance and does a limited background of a prospective account holders driving record before allowing someone to use the service. But, the user of the service, who drives the car, would be primarily liable for any accident that the car gets into. The other kind, sometimes called a &quot;car share&quot; and sometimes called a &quot;ride share&quot; is more like an Uber or Lyft, which is a glorified, on demand taxi service, in which a driver provides the services of the driver and the vehicle and takes car of insurance and will be primarily liable for any accident the car gets into as a driver and owner of the car.
Apparently, Yes In the ECJ's Breyer decision the final conclusion reads: Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that a dynamic IP address registered by an online media services provider when a person accesses a website that the provider makes accessible to the public constitutes personal data within the meaning of that provision, in relation to that provider, where the latter has the legal means which enable it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider has about that person. It is true that in this case the decision was actually under Directive 95/46/EC, not the GDPR, but the GDPR took its definition of personal Data directly from Directive 95/46/EC, so that should make no difference. It is also true that in this case the website in question was operated by the German Federal government, an not by a private individual, or by a private business. A government might have "legal means" to link an IP address with an individual that a private actor does not. However in point 23 of the decision, the Court refered to the IP addresses as: ... stored by the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in its capacity as an online media services provider, ... which seems to indicate that the same ruels were being applied to it as would have been to a private entity. Point 44 of the decision says that: The fact that the additional data necessary to identify the user of a website are held not by the online media services provider, but by that user’s internet service provider does not appear to be such as to exclude that dynamic IP addresses registered by the online media services provider constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46. In point 47, the court says that: ... in the event of cyber attacks legal channels exist so that the online media services provider is able to contact the competent authority, so that the latter can take the steps necessary to obtain that information from the internet service provider and to bring criminal proceedings. This leads the court to point 49, where it says that; Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, ... Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that a dynamic IP address registered by an online media services provider when a person accesses a website that the provider makes accessible to the public constitutes personal data within the meaning of that provision, in relation to that provider, where the latter has the legal means which enable it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider has about that person. Nothing in the decision indicates that any particular governmental authority was considered to provide the "legal means" to get an ISP to link an IP used at a particular time to an individual. In this page from Intersoft consulting it is said that: Since the definition includes “any information,” one must assume that the term “personal data” should be as broadly interpreted as possible. ... The same also applies to IP addresses. If the controller has the legal option to oblige the provider to hand over additional information which enable him to identify the user behind the IP address, this is also personal data. In this page from eugdprcompliant.com it is said that: A much discussed topic is the IP address. The GDPR states that IP addresses should be considered personal data as it enters the scope of ‘online identifiers’. Of course, in the case of a dynamic IP address – which is changed every time a person connects to a network – there has been some legitimate debate going on as to whether it can truly lead to the identification of a person or not. The conclusion is that the GDPR does consider it as such. The logic behind this decision is relatively simple. The internet service provider (ISP) has a record of the temporary dynamic IP address and knows to whom it has been assigned. A website provider has a record of the web pages accessed by a dynamic IP address (but no other data that would lead to the identification of the person). If the two pieces information would be combined, the website provider could find the identity of the person behind a certain dynamic IP address. However, the chances of this happening are small, as the ISP has to meet certain legal obligations before it can hand the data to a website provider. The conclusion is, all IP addresses should be treated as personal data, in order to be GDPR compliant. Finally the european Commission says, on this official page: Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data. ... Examples of personal data ... an Internet Protocol (IP) address; While the case law is scanty on the point, it appears that the consensus is that IP addresses, even dynamic IP addresses, will be considered to be Personal Data under the GDPR. >
The question is always, would a reasonable customer be confused into thinking that the two are the same, or that there is some relation or sponsorship or attribute to one product or firm the rightful reputation of another. That is always dependent on the specific facts and the specific market involved. So-called &quot;famous&quot; marks get extra protection. The exact markets involved will matter. Any stylizations such as colors and typefaces may matter. Logos may matter. I can't say if one of those specific names would be found to infringe on the other.
The agreement linked in the question seems to be or to purport to be, for a non-final, non-production version of the board. I have seen such agreements used, both for hardware and software, used when beta-test versions of products are being distributed to those who agree to do such testing, often in exchange for a reduced price on the final product, or an early look. I have also seen similar language used when an evaluation version of a product is provided free, or at a much reduced price. In such a use, it would be a reasonable contract, it seem to me, and I see no reason why if it were agreed to by both parties in such a situation, it would not be binding. Often such agreements also include a non-disclosure aspect, but this one does not seem to do so. I cannot see how such an agreement could be made applicable automatically, without both parties having chosen to agree to it, and indicated this by signing, clicking, or in some other positive way. I doubt that it could be made automatically applicable, on an "by using this product you agree" basis. I don't know of any physical consumer product, or appliance, sold with such an agreement in ordinary commerce. I am not sure what would happen if a manufacturer wanted to require all purchasers to sign such an agreement. I don't know if it would be binding. I would think that the purchaser's rights under the First Sale doctrice, could be modified by a valid contract agreed to by the purchaser. I do not think that they could simply be revoked by a contract of adhesion, which the purchaser had no choice to decline before making the purchase. As the OP says this was not signed or agreed to in any way, I can't see how it binds the OP.