Can a computer program agree to Terms of Service? Most service providers have Terms of Service that people or entities need to agree to before legally using their services. On another question I had, arguments were made that you needed to be a person to agree to the TOS. But this doesn't seem right as corporations can agree to TOS and they are not people. I figured it would explicitly fall under the exact verbiage of the TOS on who could or could not agree to the contract. For example, here is a section from the cloud service provider Digital Ocean's TOS: Whom does this TOS apply to? When we refer to “DigitalOcean” or we use pronouns like “we”, “us” or “our”, we are referring to DigitalOcean, LLC as well as its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries. When we refer to the “User”, we are talking about you, and we will also use words like “you” and “your” to refer to you. Who “you” are can get more complicated if you are using our services on behalf of a company, organization, or other entity. In that case, you are representing to us that you have the authority to bind your company, organization, other entity to this TOS and that you agree to be legally bound by this TOS on behalf of such entity (and “User”, “you”, and “your” then refer to such entity). If you aren’t sure what this means or whether you are authorized to bind your company, organization, or entity to this contract, you should ask others in your organization to get clarification about authority. They mention &quot;or other entity&quot;. Is a computer program considered an entity that can agree to terms of service?
Other Entities means Legal Person The reason for the term &quot;legal person&quot; is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are &quot;persons&quot; legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not people in a literal sense (human beings) This is very similar to Corporate Personhood. Among the recognized items for legal personhood are usually groups of people, such as a corporation, states or countries, but also churches and temples. In rare cases, Temple buildings and at least two rivers are legal persons. All non-natural legal persons have in common, that they are represented by natural persons - aka humans. A computer program is not represented by a natural person. A natural person (possibly representing a legal person) can use a program to agree to a contract, but a program agreeing on its own is not following the basic principle of a contract, which requires a meeting of the minds on the offer. The computer program becomes the tool that facilitates the contract, for example by offering a prewritten contract to people that want to use the service. Since the contract is usually offered by the service providers as is with no renegotiation allowed, those contracts can only be accepted or not - their side of the bargain is offered and then facilitated by the computer of the service provider - we have an invitation to treat. If a natural or legal person is able to agree (through its representative), the contract becomes binding. If you are not a legal person - so neither a human nor one of the recognized categories - you can not agree to the TOS, the contract is void.
TOS are a contract. If you have a contract through the App, you have incorporated the TOS as a term of your contract. Contracts mean what they say they do, what you are thinking of as "basic contract law" is actual just an ordinary and customary term that people in your industry usually make a part of the contract, not contract law itself.
I had a contract with a company, but that company changed its name. Is my contract still enforceable? Yes, because what matters is the entity itself. A contract is not stricken merely because one or more parties changed names or labels.
Editing is protected speech under the First Amendment. The government may not require any license to perform such services, though an author could impose whatever credentialing requirements she chooses. If you have created a business to provide those services, that business may need to be registered with/licensed to business in the state generally, but again, it would not require any special licesnse to perform editing services. Whether you provide those services as an individual or as the agent of a business entity, any income you derive from editing is subject to taxation the same as any other income you receive.
Contracts don’t need to be signed Unless they are of a class that does - NDA’s aren’t. If the parties agree to a contract then it binds them. You agreed and your evidence for doing so is your signature. They agreed and their evidence for doing so is your signature on the contract they gave you.
Can reading a something mean agree to to a contract? Just reading — no. Reading and acting as if you have agreed — yes. This is called "acceptance through conduct". I had an employer deduct a small fee to process my payment, they argued that they were allowed to because it stated they would on the website I had to use for the job. Does this even form a contract? Yes — because you read and continued to use the website. librarian came up to me and pointed out a sign saying I had to pay before using the computer (which is uncommon where I live). Is there a contract formed by just having a sign? Hypothetically could the library sue me for not paying? Provided that you read the sign and started using the computer — yes. However, because you did not see the sign, the library had failed to communicate the terms of the offer to you, which means there was no contract. However to however, if you continue using the computer even after the librarian tells you that you have to pay, you now accept the offer through conduct. In this case, the library could sue you for damages should you not pay. if there was a sign on the door to a private building saying you have to pay $20 to enter, if you didn't read the sign and entered, could the owner demand $20 from you? If the sign was so conspicuous that no reasonable person would have missed it — yes (because you should have read it and then you entered the building. But you could get away if you convinced the judge that you genuinely did not see/read the sign, for which you would have to have a plausible excuse (e.g. vision impairment).
Section 4, Definition 4 Covered Entity, emphasis added: The term "covered entity" means a device manufacturer, a software manufacturer, an electronic communication service, a remote computing service, a provider of wire or electronic communication service, a provider of a remote computing service, or any person who provides a product or method to facilitate a communication or the processing or storage of data. This definition seems extremely broad, and could be stretched to cover an answerer on Stack Overflow whose answer provided a method facilitating data processing, storage, or communication (which covers most software methods). So let's then look at what can be required of a covered entity: Section 3(a)(1), Requirement: ... a covered entity that receives a court order from a government for information or data shall provide such information or data to such government in an intelligible format or provide technical assistance as is necessary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose of the court order. Subsection 2 limits the scope so that a covered entity only has to provide data if the data was "made unintelligible by a feature, product, or service owned, controlled, created, or provided by the covered entity or by a third party on behalf of the covered entity." However, courts cannot effectively require people to do the impossible; if a programmer wrote a method that was used in an encrypted communication service that does not mean the programmer, lacking the encryption key, will be forced to break what they believe to be unbreakable encryption. The key here is in section 3(c), emphasis added: A provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public that distributes licenses for products, services, applications, or software of or by a covered entity shall ensure that any such products, services, applications, or software distributed by such person be capable of complying with subsection (a). So if this bill were to become law, it would be the service provider who's responsible for making sure the government can get the intelligible information. The government could require e.g. the author of the encryption function, even if that person's not part of the service provider, to help break the encryption, but the responsibility for ensuring data accessibility lies with the service provider. The definition of service provider seems absent from at least what I can see of this bill, but it seems that a company selling a communications service to customers would very likely qualify, and a person/company who posted an answer on SO that was then picked up and integrated into something someone else distributed as part of a service, very likely would not.
The basic requirement is that any communication using the trade name be possible to trace back to the LLC using the trade name, either with a disclosure in the communication itself, or with a trade name (a.k.a. doing business as a.k.a. dba) registration that links the trade name to the entity in the public record. If this is not done, business conducted in the trade name may be treated as a sole proprietorship or general partnership of the people actually conducting the activity, rather than an activity of the limited liability company behind it, thus depriving those people of limited liability protection.