What is the point of website Terms and Conditions? I was considering answering How prominent must terms of service be?; when I was struck by a thought: what is the point of website Terms and Conditions anyway? Clearly, if they form a contract and they are properly brought to the attention of and agreed to by the user then they are binding (knowledge of and agreement by the provider could safely be assumed). However, one of the fundamental requirements of a contract is that both parties must provide valuable consideration. If the user is paying to access the service then this requirement is satisfied (e.g., a pay wall on a news site or a purchase agreement on an auction site). If they are not then they provide no consideration and there is therefore no contract. For example, participation on this website is putatively subject to the agreement you can read by following the legal link below. How prominent must terms of service be? is the appropriate place to address whether the terms are prominent enough to constitute agreement (IMO it's arguable), so take it that they are. It is possible, that what we post is valuable consideration but I think that is worth a question on its own so I did Are the Q&amp;A posted on Stack Exchange websites valuable consideration?, so take it that it isn't. In the absence of its users providing valuable consideration then there is no contract: What then is the point of the terms and conditions? Clearly, such terms and conditions could be to draw the users' attention to legal obligations that exist as a matter or law without a contract (e.g., Copyright and other IP obligations). They could also be used to create rules that would allow users to be denied service, however, since anyone can be denied service for any reason so long as that reason is not unlawfully discriminatory, it seems pretty pointless.
A web site's Terms of Service are not a contract but, rather, a license. law.washington.edu has an interesting discussion of contracts vs. licenses and asks the question, "Does it matter?" In the case of a web site, the owner of the web site is granting you a license, subject to certain terms, to access the web site and use it. No consideration is required for a license. From the linked article, which discusses copyright, "In the context of copyright law, a 'license' is a permission to do an act that, without the permission, would be unlawful." In the case of a web site's terms and conditions, the owner is granting permission to you to access and use the web site subject to the terms of the license. Typically, such a license will require you to release any liability that may accrue because of your use of the site. The Stack Exchange license, in fact, grants certain permissions related to copyright, "Subscriber may download or copy the Content, and other items displayed on the Network for download, for personal use, provided that Subscriber maintains all copyright and other notices contained in such Content." The Stack Exchange license also places requirements on those who contribute to discussion including a requirement to "perpetually and irrevocably [license] to Stack Exchange" anything we post. In this case, by pressing the "Post Your Answer" question, I have agreed to license my creation, this answer, to Stack Exchange.
You agreed to this On Stackexchange, there are Terms of Service. These tell you to follow the Code of conduct and explicitly allow SO to throw you out if they don't want you to write here. Stack Overflow reserves the right to refuse, suspend or terminate your access to the public Network if it determines, in its sole discretion, that you have in any way violated these Public Network Terms or are otherwise ineligible to access or use the Network or Services. If your actions are determined by us to violate these Public Network Terms, Stack Overflow may, in its sole discretion, try to remediate that violation by working with you individually, but is under no obligation to do so, and if any such remediation efforts are unsuccessful (in Stack Overflow’s sole discretion), then Stack Overflow may revoke your rights to the Network. You agreed to follow the rules, and the code of conduct spells out that if you don't, then you face action.
What SE can do is controlled primarily by the Terms of Service. What most matters is the section on Subscriber Content, which says: You agree that any and all content, including without limitation any and all text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, animations, and product feedback (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA), and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by you... This means that you cannot revoke permission for Stack Overflow to publish, distribute, store and use such content and to allow others to have derivative rights to publish, distribute, store and use such content. The CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license terms are explained in further detail by Creative Commons, but you should be aware that all Public Content you contribute is available for public copy and redistribution, and all such Public Content must have appropriate attribution. This part has not changed: the purported license is still "CC-BY-SA", and the TOS does not explicitly specify a version. What apparently has changed in the relevant section is one "helpful information" link, which now points to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. So the interesting question arises whether that would constitute an unpermitted post-hoc change in the terms by which SE has license to my older stuff. This matter came up in a reviled Meta question; as I pointed out, the TOS also included a merger clause that This Agreement (including the Privacy Policy), as modified from time to time, constitutes the entire agreement between You, the Network and Stack Exchange with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement replaces all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding the subject matter hereof. Because of that, the TOS is self-contained and stuff found on other web pages are not part of the agreement. This in itself is a bit of a problem because you can't both say "we're not bound by stuff outside of this page" and say "the specific terms of the license are outside this page". That particular clause is gone, but there is an analog in the current TOS: These Public Network Terms represent the entire agreement between you and Stack Overflow and supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals, and representations with respect to the public Network or Services or Products contemplated hereunder. Furthermore, the TOS contains the following "we can change it" clause: Stack Overflow reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify or replace these Public Network Terms, as our business evolves over time and to better provide Services and Products to the Stack Overflow community, or to change, suspend, or discontinue the public Network and/or any Services or Products at any time by posting a notice on the public Network or by sending you notice via e-mail or by another appropriate means of electronic communication. I assume but do not know for a fact that a similar clause existed in prior versions of the TOS. So I conclude that the change is legal.
Contracts are a relationship between two or more people Just as it is meaningless to speak of marrying yourself, it is equally meaningless to speak of a contract with yourself. Even if you were to draft such a thing, you would not have standing to sue because you can’t sue yourself. Your example probably isn’t a “one person contract” It’s a contract between the car owner (person 1) and the car yard (person 2) - probably a corporation. The fact that person 1 is representing both parties to the contract doesn’t make it a “one person contract”. There are potential conflicts of interest with this but they are not necessarily ones that can’t be overcome. However, if the car owner runs a business as a car dealer as a sole trader, then, no, they cannot make this kind of contract.
This is a large question, so I'll only put a spotlight on some misconceptions. Why can't Google use legitimate interest instead of consent to serve ads? A data controller such as Google must choose an appropriate legal basis per Art 6(1). But if the legal basis is consent, and the data subject declines or retracts consent, you can't do the processing anyway under legitimate interest instead. It seems that the issue is not that consent was an inappropriate legal basis, but that they decided to use consent and did not collect it properly (see below). However, Google's analysis that they need consent is likely correct. There is an good argument that a website can show first-party ads under a legitimate interest. Google does so as well. But the consent in question is for ad personalization, i.e. on creating detailed profiles on users in order to show more “relevant” ads. For that purpose, Google's legitimate interest would likely not outweigh the data subject's rights and freedoms (compare Art 6(1)(f)). Why might consent be invalid? The GDPR defines consent in Art 4(11) and specifies further requirements in Art 7. The EDPB has issued guidelines 05/2020 and previously WP259 on consent. A core requirement, in addition to the general Art 5(1)(a) transparency principle, is that consent is specific and informed. The user must be informed about the specific purpose for which consent is being asked, and must be able to control consent individually for each purpose. Additionally, consent requires an affirmative action, consent is never the default. The EDPB recommends a layered information approach: in the first information layer, at the point where consent is being asked, the proposed processing activities are summarized. Full details (including all information per Art 13) are provided in a second layer that can be reached via a link. Consent will not be informed if the data subject is required to read the entire privacy policy first. How does the CNIL see Google's approach to consent and transparency? The CNIL asserts that Google failed at every step of a layered information design and failed to obtain valid consent: consent controls were hidden by default, i.e. there was no first information layer consent controls were pre-checked, thus requiring opt-out. That's not how you ask for consent (but might have been alright if Google had used legitimate interest instead). consent is all-or-nothing and not sufficiently granular Google's main information layer is its privacy policy, but it is very general and does not provide sufficiently specific information Google only provides specific information spread across further documents, often 5 or 6 levels deep Could Google rely on Art 6(1)(b) necessity for performance of a contract? If a data subject enters a contract about Google using their data for ads, yes. Otherwise, no. But in practice, necessity for a contract is very similar to consent because the data subject can freely decide whether or not to enter a contract. Even when the legal basis is a contract, the data controller still has an obligation to provide transparent information. Depending on the structure of the contract, a layered approach could be used as well. However, the purposes of processing are ultimately given by the contents of the contract. What about the Ads Data Processing Terms? These terms are not part of the terms of service or the privacy policy that end users agree to. The ads terms are instead part of their B2B offerings.
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.
To expand on Dale's answer, the general principle applying to acceptance are as follows: The offeree's clear and absolute expression of intention and assent must be made in response to, and must exactly match, the terms of the offer. This expression must be communicated with the offeror in order to be effective. This means that a verbal contract is just as binding as a written one, with or without initial or signature. The importance of the initial or signature, as correctly identified by Dale is to be able to hold the offeree to account if a breach of the contract follows. Importantly, a contract can stipulate in what form the expression of acceptance must take. In the case of unilateral contracts, such as in adverts (see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893], for a relevant item of UK case law), no expression of acceptance is needed to be received by the offeror - merely attempting to perform the act has been held as adequate acceptance.
If you do not get anything from this "contract", and all it says is that you will pay someone a sum of money "on demand", it does not meet the basic requirements to form a contract, and in particular, there is no consideration being received by you. It would therefore not be a contract and would have zero legal force. If you do receive consideration, demonstrating that you signed the contract under duress will require specific legal advice, and you need a practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction.