Something Odd going on at Linedrive Cloud Storage

Layback Bear said:

When something has limits it should be in BOLD print up front.

Where is the E.U. on this matter. I know; it's not Microsoft so it must be okay to hide the restrictions.

I believe their must be some sort of restriction to hinder misuse. I don't have a problem with that but why hide the restrictions.
Their is a easy way to solve the problem.
1. No use of the word (unrestricted) when their is restrictions.
2. Listing of the restrictions in BOLD PRINT up front on the first page of any agreements.
3. A one time message to the misuser explaining the problem and agreement before shutting them out.

These things are not hard to do and doesn't cost a lot of money.

Problem solved.

Hi there

Agree totally -- put conditions in front of the user signing up for the service so they know what they are buying - and then I don't think anybody has a problem with that.

Whichever way you cut it if a service is advertised as UNLIMITED and then has restrictions then the contract is INVALID and invalid contracts in most jurisdictions cannot be enforced -- at the very least you should get a total refund since the service you were buying wasn't either what you signed up to or you were being sold a meaningless and unenforceable contract (in common Law).

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

Layback Bear said:

When something has limits it should be in BOLD print up front.

Where is the E.U. on this matter. I know; it's not Microsoft so it must be okay to hide the restrictions.

I believe their must be some sort of restriction to hinder misuse. I don't have a problem with that but why hide the restrictions.
Their is a easy way to solve the problem.
1. No use of the word (unrestricted) when their is restrictions.
2. Listing of the restrictions in BOLD PRINT up front on the first page of any agreements.
3. A one time message to the misuser explaining the problem and agreement before shutting them out.

These things are not hard to do and doesn't cost a lot of money.

Problem solved.

Hi there

Agree totally -- put conditions in front of the user signing up for the service so they know what they are buying - and then I don't think anybody has a problem with that.

Whichever way you cut it if a service is advertised as UNLIMITED and then has restrictions then the contract is INVALID and invalid contracts in most jurisdictions cannot be enforced -- at the very least you should get a total refund since the service you were buying wasn't either what you signed up to or you were being sold a meaningless and unenforceable contract (in common Law).

Cheers
jimbo

The language of ambiguity = Contracts

The use of the word "Unlimited" will always be defined later in the contract. The use of "Unlimited data" will always be defined later in the contract. For example "You have Unlimited Access to the Internet and Unlimited Data." Which should be clear enough but at the end of the contract they always have the definitions. "We do not guarantee that you will have access to the Internet at all times" .. "For the purpose of this contract "Unlimited Data" shall mean no more then 300 mb of Data in a 24 hour period." .. "Data shall mean the total of incoming and out going traffic combined."

The last reference be it a definition or otherwise will take precedence over all definitions or references written before it in the contract. This is what they use to remove the ambiguity by declaring the purpose and clarification. Any time I read a contract that I am considering I always start at the end.

It may not even be in the contract but referred to in another document such as a TOS or Rules and Regulations which by reference becomes a fully enforceable part of the contract even if it's not attached to the contract. "All terms and conditions of the TOS/Rules and Regulations shall be enforceable and considered a part of this contract." If you don't ask for the TOS or rules and regulations it's not their problem.

I always looked at contracts as if I'm standing on a three legged chair with a rope around my neck and they have a running chain saw. I've walked away from a good number of three legged chairs.

Basically, and it's sad to say, if they are in business and offering me a contract I don't trust them or the contract, call it life lessons if you will.

Hi there

Clouds and Birds bring anything to mind ==> Cloud Cuckoo Land for example.

@Computer0304 - Be aware if using servers to store Pirated / copyrighted data on them (movies from Torrents for example) then THE WHOLE SERVER can get shut down -- remember what happened to MEGAUPLOAD server not so long ago.

Even if YOU are entirely innocent the WHOLE server can be taken down, your entire data scanned and analyzed by Police, Interpol, CIA, MOSSAD or any other "security agency" on the planet (depending on where the server is physically located).

While Corporate cloud servers have some use I'd never rely on a PUBLIC Cloud server for anything that a) I didn't want to lose, and b) any PRIVATE data I didn't want other people trawling through at will if the server is seized.

@Scr - it would be interesting for someone to test in a proper Court of Law exactly how a CONTRACT is meant to be specified -- I'm sure if you have TWO conflicting positions - IS UNLIMITED or IS NOT UNLIMITED then this surely must rank as an invalid contract AND SHOULD NOT BE OFFERED in the form its presented in. (External factors such as Internet connections, speed, ISP bandwidth etc are not relevant here either).

Obviously the Server provider can't provide 100% access to the Internet -- however the service provides that WHEN CONNECTED you can have UNLIMITED DATA -- well either you can or you cannot. If you cannot then offering it is then a contradiction and will be deemed as invalid.

The Courts can't mess around with the English Language otherwise nobody would be able to Prosecute or Defend any action whatsoever. Limitations by your ISP provider are external to the service offered here. IMO this whole contract should be re-worded entirely and it would be great if someone could get their fee back because the contract was deemd invalid.

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

Hi there

@Scr - it would be interesting for someone to test in a proper Court of Law exactly how a CONTRACT is meant to be specified -- I'm sure if you have TWO conflicting positions - IS UNLIMITED or IS NOT UNLIMITED then this surely must rank as an invalid contract AND SHOULD NOT BE OFFERED in the form its presented in. (External factors such as Internet connections, speed, ISP bandwidth etc are not relevant here either).

Obviously the Server provider can't provide 100% access to the Internet -- however the service provides that WHEN CONNECTED you can have UNLIMITED DATA -- well either you can or you cannot. If you cannot then offering it is then a contradiction and will be deemed as invalid.

The Courts can't mess around with the English Language otherwise nobody would be able to Prosecute or Defend any action whatsoever. Limitations by your ISP provider are external to the service offered here. IMO this whole contract should be re-worded entirely and it would be great if someone could get their fee back because the contract was deemd invalid.

Cheers
jimbo

Here's some interesting reading, well sort of, don't let your eyes glaze over. http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~schane/law/ambiguity.pdf