Can I amend boilerplate contracts by mail? I am party to a number of contracts (website terms of service, for example), where a service operator writes the contract, and I agree to the contract by using the service. If the other party wants to amend the contract, they make available to me a new version of the contract, and the new contract is binding when I next use their services. Intuitively, two should be able to play at this game, no? I can write up my own contract, or an amendment to the existing contract, and give them reasonable notice, and it should become binding on them if they continue to provide services to me when I request them. Under this theory, it's their responsibility to read and understand my contract, and refrain from doing business with me if my terms are not to their liking. Is this likely to hold up in court? Or, better yet, is it likely to convince the other party to comply with my contract? Or is this sort of agreement-by-performance only binding in certain contexts, or for certain types of services? (For example, is the situation different between a web site that I browse and a service I subscribe to that sends me something in the mail every month in exchange for money?) If in theory a contract can be amended by giving notice of terms and waiting for the other party to perform, what kind of notice is reasonable to give a large entity like a corporation? Presumably shooting off an e-mail to their automated support system would be insufficient.
Offer and Acceptance For a contract to be a contract there must be an intention on both parties to create legal relations - this is usually considered in terms of an offer and acceptance. When Website Co makes an offer to the world, you accept it by clicking the ToS acknowledgement and using the service. This is explicit acceptance of the offer. The ToS contain provisions that Website Co may amended or replace the ToS by giving you notice, when this happens the contract is still in force as the contract contemplattes its own variation: it doesn't need to be varied by another contract. They do allow you to opt out of the contract by no longer using the service but they are not obliged to do so. The ToS do not contain provisions allowing you to modify them. Therefore when you write to them you are making an offer to vary the contract. They can accept it explicitly or by conduct. They won't accept it explicitly. They aren't engaging in any conduct that is not already subject to the existing contract so they aren't accepting it by conduct.
You're misreading the law. You need to keep reading the section you referenced (emphasis added): The disclosure...shall be made in writing and delivered through the consumer’s account with the business, if the consumer maintains an account with the business, or by mail or electronically at the consumer’s option if the consumer does not maintain an account with the business Thus, the option to have the disclosure sent by mail only applies to consumers who do not have an account with the business. Since presumably a large number of sites only maintain personal information for users with accounts, such sites need not provide a mail option. Further, it doesn't say there needs to be a button: you just need the ability to say you'd like it mailed to you in the request somehow, and then they need to comply when you do.
Contracts are generally assignable, meaning that one company can assign their rights, duties and obligations under the contract. Assignment may be specifically barred by the contract, or it may have certain terms (prior written consent, etc.) attached, but if not, a contract is likely freely assignable. Though a contract is not necessarily "automatically transferred" the reason Company C buys Company A is for its ability to earn Company C over time, which includes the contract between A &amp; B. So unless the original contract has a "no assignments clause" or if an assignment is otherwise impossible or illegal, it is likely that A can freely assign the contract to C.
It depends on what you mean by backdated. If you mean that the terms of the contract provide that they apply to a period which pre-dates the date on which the contract was entered into then this is fine. The parties are free to negotiate terms which govern their past behaviour. If instead you mean that the contract purports to have been entered into in the past then no, that is not legitimate. Depending on the circumstances this can amount to fraud or forgery. In practice it is common for people to misunderstand the difference and so you will often find contracts backdated by inserting the past date as the date of the contract (the 2nd type) when the correct approach is to have a clause which specifies that the terms apply from an earlier date (the 1st type). There is also an implied question here about what those terms should be for the backdated period. The parties are free to agree what they like in order to &quot;rewrite history&quot; but failing that, what are the terms governing the period after the fixed term contract came to an end? The contract itself may contain an automatic renewal clause. Failing that there are a number of possibilities. From Practical Law (pay-walled): In the circumstances you describe (the parties have continued to deal) one of the following legal outcomes is likely: A new agreement has been entered into. A contract may be created by actions as well as words. For more information about contract formation, see Practice note, Contracts: formation The old agreement has been continued, on the same or varied terms. Just as a contract may be created by actions, it can be varied by them too. Contract clauses seeking to limit the parties' freedom to vary the contract, for example by imposing formal requirements for a variation, may themselves be varied. For more information on variation generally, see Practice note, Contracts: variation. There is no contract, but only a duty to pay a reasonable sum for services requested. For more information on restitution generally, see Practice note, Remedies: restitution In determining which of the above applies, a court will look at: What the parties have said and done about extending the contract or continuing to deal. The extent to which their behaviour is consistent with the terms of the old agreement. If the parties continue to do business in a way which is consistent with the terms of the expired agreement, this will support an argument that their relationship is governed by its terms. Whether a court will hold that the expired agreement has been extended in its entirety or that just some of the old terms apply will depend on the facts. However, the following cases suggest that where there have been no disputes over specific terms in the post-expiry period, the entire original agreement may apply: [rest omitted for brevity] Disclaimers: my answer is based on general contract law. Landlord and tenant law is complex and specific rules may well exist in your case. The terms of your lease may also affect the situation. We don't give specific legal advice here and you should speak to a solicitor about you situation if in any doubt.
Yes From clause 7 of the Ebay agreement: When you enter into a transaction you create a legally binding contract with another user, unless the item is listed in a category under the Non-binding bid policy. You have a contract, if you don't fulfil your obligations under it you can be sued. You can only terminate a contract a) if the contract provides for termination and the relevant circumstances have happened, or b) due to a breach of a condition (but not a warranty) of the contract by the other party or c) some very limited and highly technical circumstances at law. The fact that the other party is rude doesn't fit within b) or c) and, barring some very unusual contract terms, won't fit in a) either. Make good on your legally enforcable promise.
No, there is no general publicly accessible directory of lawsuits against private individuals, even if it concerns yourself. The complaint must identify you as the defendant indicating a ladungsfähige Anschrift, § 253 Ⅱ, Ⅳ, 130 ZPO. Commencing an action requires service of process, § 253 Ⅰ ZPO. I presume you are not a De-Mail user. So you will get a hardcopy. You may not know that, but such mail in Germany is usually sent in yellow envelopes. The mailman will carefully compare the mailbox label and in case of a match record the date and time of successful delivery on the envelope as well as a slip of paper returned to the sender, the court in this case. Now this will obviously fail in your case (unless the landlord maliciously attached a corresponding label to a mailbox). In a civil action the court “pretends” to be dumb regarding facts. The landlord must try to track you down. Evidently he knew your email address, so he had some contact details. If he was evil, the next option would be to ask the court for an öffentliche Zustellung, § 185 ZPO. If the court agreed, this means there will be, for instance, in the city hall a paper on a bulletin board “To the attention of Coala, last known address …: There is mail for you to pick up at my office.” Two weeks later the letter is automatically considered to be delivered.Some cities (example: Cologne, NRW) also publish these documents on the internet, but due to GDPR considerations delete them after a certain period now. If there was a lawsuit, there will have been a default judgment by now, i.e. you will have lost just by being a no‑show. However, you said you have never received the bill. This means the landlord must have produced false evidence, claim to have sent the bill and a subsequent warning notice, but there was none. But this is an entirely different issue.
If this requirement was not made before rendering the service, you are under no obligation to accept the term. You and the service provider must now find an agreeable method of payment. You still owe the provider but if you are compelled to pay then the provider will be compelled to be more accommodating in their allowed payment methods (cash, at least). As a general rule, if you are providing a service for any significant amount of money, you should require payment up front or at least a deposit and payments at milestones. Especially if you're 7,000 miles away from your client and put any restrictions on method of payment.
Such clauses are called "copyright assignment", "invention assignment", and/or "works for hire" clauses, partly depending on the clause's intent and wording. They're pretty common in employment contracts for software development and some creative positions. Frankly, the clauses don't actually do much, at least in the US -- copyright law already recognizes the concept of works made for hire (which belong to the employer), and claims too far beyond that are often rejected if they aren't obviously related to company business. With that said, your hypothetical programmer's painting is safe unless it depicts, say, the contents of an email from the CEO. :) Even if the clause technically entitles the employer to claim ownership, the employer has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, that app created outside work is safe as long as it is created using no company resources and is unrelated to the employer's business. If the app is obviously related, that's where things get hairy.