"How Do Courts Treat Ambiguous Contracts?
Usually, if there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation between the parties, a court will allow the parties to rewrite the contract in order to resolve the ambiguity. When engaging in contract interpretation, a court might use the following to help them understand the parties’ intentions:
Common Usage: Vague words can be clarified using the common usage of the term, or the dictionary meaning. This is useful for everyday, non-technical terms.
Parol Evidence: Parol evidence refers to oral agreements that were reached prior to the formal signing of the contract (as in negotiations). In some cases parol evidence can be introduced in court, though this may vary by case
Industry Usage: Courts may have to rely on the way a word is commonly used in a particular industry. This is common for words that have a highly technical meaning specific to a certain industry or business
Prior dealings: Ambiguities can be resolved by examining how the parties used the term in the past. This is good for when the parties have had consistent interactions in the past
Reasonableness: Courts will also factor in whether one interpretation is more reasonable than another. If an interpretation leads to an impossible or unlikely outcome, a different interpretation will be favored.
Implied Meanings: A court may simply “fill in the blank” and imply that a word has a certain definition, especially where terms were left blank. However, they will avoid this if it is certain that the parties intended the contract to be silent on a certain point
Also, in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved “against” the party that drafted the contract. The party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities. This is because it is assumed that the party that drafted the contract may have more knowledge and bargaining power compared with the other.
Finally, courts may sometimes avoid resolving ambiguous contracts in ways that would lead to unnecessary hardship for one of the parties. This is common where one party has significantly more experience or bargaining leverage than the other."
"Damn son. No wonder you think a public house is literally a house for the public if you think that's how basic local government works."
A public house was early government mandated rent controlled housing. To supply enough low rent housing the government would require that anyone who wanted to serve alcohol/food also provide low rent rooms in order to be licensed.
In short the state leveraged licensing authority to create low rent housing. I'm sorry that you are too ignorant to not know that there is a huge difference between a 16th century public house and a modern pub.
Its sad that you actually think you won that argument. Dunning Kruger I guess.
Professional engineer with a masters in electrical engineering, triple bachelors in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.
You?
I'm not surprised you work in tech? Most "tech" act like spoiled children. That's why they say they want TOS to be legal contracts then bitch moan and complain like the brats they are when those contracts are regulated like any other contract. Which is this thread in its entirety.
"Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain."
That sounds like a typical millennial talk shit and threaten battery
"tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn't have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business."
And when I tell you that I will kick your ass if you try, you run to the teacher. You made the origional threat. I'm only telling you what will happen if you try.
Your generation is a joke.
I got a good anecdote for that too because I was just in Hawaii. Millennial surfer came over top of me. I paddled over to him asked him what the hell he was thinking, he talks a bunch of crap about kicking my old ass.
Like all Gen-X I tell him
'You and me on the beach now!'
I paddle back to the beach and the kid stayed out for 2 hours refusing to come in.
Your generation are nothing but cowards. You talk a bunch of shit and when challenged you run and cry.
Anytime an agent of the state reports any legal speech to Facebook or any other social media all that social media should do is report the agent to the DOJ civil rights division for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights. To even humor the request and fail to report the crime is to involve itself in the illegal conspiracy.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn’t want to host—e.g., pro-Klan propaganda—on a service you own and operate?"
Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?
"law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech"
The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it. Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with 'this is my job so I know it' he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.
HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.
States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don't want their courts burdened with contract disputes.
The way TOS are written today is 'neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it' this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.
"And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!"
I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.
Now as I said in retort to the original claim that there exists some kind of Constructional property right to engage in physical someone to remove them from your property is a misconception. There is no such Constructional right and in most states its illegal.
You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.
Now the states do individuals legal privilege to do such like the aforementioned licensed security, which is the case in almost all states, or a backwards ass state like Texas may grant a legal privilege in their law, but a legal privilege isn't the same as a right.
"By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle."
By your paid shill definition if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.
"Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated."
Then TOS are not a contract and cannot be treated as such. The very companies that pushed for law that allowed TOS to be contracts now want TOS to be exempt from the rules of contract law.
Mike is a paid shill. His job is to keep out basic common law from applying to social media. His entire livelihood is built on keeping social media the wild wild west when it comes to regulatory law.
Mike, I now this is hard for you but attempting to add "vaccine misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of criminal activity "child sexual abuse" and "direct threats of violence" is specifically intended allow 'bad faith actors to game the system.'
Correct, this bill in no way forces an social media to host any content. It simply requires some basic standards for enforcement of their TOS which are legal contracts and therefor fully under the jurisdiction of state law. The state has every right to put some basic rules for social media TOS, just as they do for rental agreements, professional contracts, business contracts etc. etc. etc.
Paid shills like Mike have one goal and that is to keep social media the wild wild west where basic our common law doesn't apply.
Despite Mikes intentionally false headline "Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism" the bill in no way forces any site to host "Holocaust Denialism." It simply sets out some basic standards for content removal, appeal, and basic right to cure.
The section of the bill the democrats tried to amend to add their pet issues is strictly for overt criminal activity specifically child sexual abuse and direct threats of physical violence.
This is the sick mindset of people like Mike. Someone like Mike so blinded by their own ideology does not see how adding "Vaccine Misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of crimes like child sexual abuse, makes a mocker of the seriousness of child sexual abuse.
Mike is fundamentally sick if he thinks that is at all appropriate.
As said before I'm a gifted athlete. I still coach my respective sport and I have had to deal with this kind of pet issue craziness form people like Mike. In many states across the nations schoools have TAD polis, that stands for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The problem with such polices is that they treat them the same because an anti-tobacco lobby is so powerful. You end up with a system that treats vaping the same as it treats meth.
This reduces the seriousness of hard drugs in the kids minds. It also hurts enforcement because you have administrators focusing of vape pens when you got some kids addicted to meth.
This has happened to me you have 5 players being suspended for up to 30 days for vaping while you got a kid addicted to meth and the admin wont do anything to save the kid because "Its only his first TAD offense." His god damn spleen was shitting down and we couldn't get the school to step in at all.
This is the specific evil that Mike is advocating for.
Taxis are not a utility. Ships are not a utility. Television is not a utility. Something does not have to be a utility to be treated as a common carrier. Try again genius!
"The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. "
That's a big misunderstanding of what school boards are. School boards are established by the state legislatures and only exist from the authority delegated to them from the legislature to the local school board.
In what world do I have to agree with everything anyone says if I'm to agree with them at all. I'm not a leftist moron. I know this is a hard concept for someone such as yourself to grasp. You clearly have no sense of self so being an individual onto yourself is a hard concept for you.
Almost all social media companies today enjoy larger market shares in their respective niches than either Standard Oil or Bell Telephone did at the time of their breakup.
A legal monopoly is not the same as the literal etymological definition of monopoly.
"How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?"
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
Finally, and most importantly: Do you truly believe the government should have the absolute legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host—even (and especially) if you’re the owner/operator of such a service?"
How do I limit text telling me that a local credit union account is about to be canceled and they need by SS#?
Shut up! These issues exist with all communication and are not unique to social media.
The bigger question is why do you not support equal protection under the law. Why should a small cell provider have to jump through more regulatory hoops than Facebook?
Well Im a big dude. 6'2" 250lb former college athlete. I'll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
I've worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.
Oh and I would also like to add Mike that you apparently favor including "vaccine misinformation" in a section in such a way as to make it on par with " preventing the sexual exploitation of children."
You are sick Mike! That you even think its appropriate to equate the two is sick!
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: 'I'm wearing shoes and shirt just not pants so I'm good.'
An ambiguous contract is legally void. You are admitting that typical TOS are illegal contracts.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ambiguous-contracts.html
"How Do Courts Treat Ambiguous Contracts?
Usually, if there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation between the parties, a court will allow the parties to rewrite the contract in order to resolve the ambiguity. When engaging in contract interpretation, a court might use the following to help them understand the parties’ intentions:
Common Usage: Vague words can be clarified using the common usage of the term, or the dictionary meaning. This is useful for everyday, non-technical terms.
Parol Evidence: Parol evidence refers to oral agreements that were reached prior to the formal signing of the contract (as in negotiations). In some cases parol evidence can be introduced in court, though this may vary by case
Industry Usage: Courts may have to rely on the way a word is commonly used in a particular industry. This is common for words that have a highly technical meaning specific to a certain industry or business
Prior dealings: Ambiguities can be resolved by examining how the parties used the term in the past. This is good for when the parties have had consistent interactions in the past
Reasonableness: Courts will also factor in whether one interpretation is more reasonable than another. If an interpretation leads to an impossible or unlikely outcome, a different interpretation will be favored.
Implied Meanings: A court may simply “fill in the blank” and imply that a word has a certain definition, especially where terms were left blank. However, they will avoid this if it is certain that the parties intended the contract to be silent on a certain point
Also, in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved “against” the party that drafted the contract. The party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities. This is because it is assumed that the party that drafted the contract may have more knowledge and bargaining power compared with the other.
Finally, courts may sometimes avoid resolving ambiguous contracts in ways that would lead to unnecessary hardship for one of the parties. This is common where one party has significantly more experience or bargaining leverage than the other."
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Your wife will get upset if you keep talking to her boyfriend like that.
The last time I saw it I was wiping it off on your pillow.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"Damn son. No wonder you think a public house is literally a house for the public if you think that's how basic local government works."
A public house was early government mandated rent controlled housing. To supply enough low rent housing the government would require that anyone who wanted to serve alcohol/food also provide low rent rooms in order to be licensed.
In short the state leveraged licensing authority to create low rent housing. I'm sorry that you are too ignorant to not know that there is a huge difference between a 16th century public house and a modern pub.
Its sad that you actually think you won that argument. Dunning Kruger I guess.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"I’m in tech. What’s your job?"
Professional engineer with a masters in electrical engineering, triple bachelors in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science.
You?
I'm not surprised you work in tech? Most "tech" act like spoiled children. That's why they say they want TOS to be legal contracts then bitch moan and complain like the brats they are when those contracts are regulated like any other contract. Which is this thread in its entirety.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"Yep. That sounds like the typical jock bully. Bib muscles, small brain."
That sounds like a typical millennial talk shit and threaten battery
"tell me how long it takes before before you are forcibly removed by somebody who doesn't have some fictitious license needed in your fantasy world to kick somebody out of their privately owned business."
And when I tell you that I will kick your ass if you try, you run to the teacher. You made the origional threat. I'm only telling you what will happen if you try.
Your generation is a joke.
I got a good anecdote for that too because I was just in Hawaii. Millennial surfer came over top of me. I paddled over to him asked him what the hell he was thinking, he talks a bunch of crap about kicking my old ass.
Like all Gen-X I tell him
'You and me on the beach now!'
I paddle back to the beach and the kid stayed out for 2 hours refusing to come in.
Your generation are nothing but cowards. You talk a bunch of shit and when challenged you run and cry.
On the post: Facebook Promises To Distinguish Takedowns From Governments; Whether They're For Illegal Content, Or Merely Site Rules Violations
Its Crime
Anytime an agent of the state reports any legal speech to Facebook or any other social media all that social media should do is report the agent to the DOJ civil rights division for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights. To even humor the request and fail to report the crime is to involve itself in the illegal conspiracy.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: One Question
"Two questions.
How would using the law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech, especially in cases where someone doesn’t want to host a given kind of speech, solve whatever problem you think that would solve?
How would you feel if you were forced by law to host speech you didn’t want to host—e.g., pro-Klan propaganda—on a service you own and operate?"
Why do you keep insisting that Mikes strawman lie is anything but a lie?
"law to compel the hosting of all legally protected speech"
The law does no such thing, no matter how much Mike lies about it. Mike is not a lawyer and he really should be careful how much he blathers with 'this is my job so I know it' he is dangerously close to practicing law without a license.
HB 20 simply sets a procedure for appeal and curing which is common in contract law.
States have a vested interest in such regulations because they don't want their courts burdened with contract disputes.
The way TOS are written today is 'neener neener neener I can do what I want and you cant do shit about it' this inherently sets up a situation that burdens state courts because their is no remedy outside of suing for breach of contract.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
"And because you still refuse to answer my original question about proving what you said, that still makes you a little bitch, you whiney little bitch!"
I answered you question little man because working security is how I made money on the side in college because the NC double assholes wont let scholarship athletes have jobs. Bouncing is a great cash money job that lots of athletes do in college to make side money behind the back of the NCAA.
Now as I said in retort to the original claim that there exists some kind of Constructional property right to engage in physical someone to remove them from your property is a misconception. There is no such Constructional right and in most states its illegal.
You can only engage in force if the other person has engaged in force first. Its not an issue of trespass. Yes they may be trespassing if you have told them to leave but you still have no property right to physically kick them out. That is battery. You have to call the cops or have someone with state approval like licensed security throw them out.
Now the states do individuals legal privilege to do such like the aforementioned licensed security, which is the case in almost all states, or a backwards ass state like Texas may grant a legal privilege in their law, but a legal privilege isn't the same as a right.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Shill Deffinition
"By definition, no monopoly can exist if more than one social media company enjoys a large market share. Mono implies one, and if we have more than one large social media company competing with each other…well, even you can’t square that circle."
By your paid shill definition if Widget Globo Inc. owns ever widget factory, and every widget store in the world, and a single person is making widgets in their garage and selling them in Toledo Ohio then Widget Globo Inc. is not a monopoly.
Can you not see how stupid this is?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
"Doing so would turn every moderation decision—hiding content behind a warning of some sort, deletion of content that violates the ToS, even suspensions and bans—into a situation where courts could (and probably would) be brought into play by those whose speech is moderated."
Then TOS are not a contract and cannot be treated as such. The very companies that pushed for law that allowed TOS to be contracts now want TOS to be exempt from the rules of contract law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re:
Mike is a paid shill. His job is to keep out basic common law from applying to social media. His entire livelihood is built on keeping social media the wild wild west when it comes to regulatory law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
Pot meet Kettle!
Mike, I now this is hard for you but attempting to add "vaccine misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of criminal activity "child sexual abuse" and "direct threats of violence" is specifically intended allow 'bad faith actors to game the system.'
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
Correct, this bill in no way forces an social media to host any content. It simply requires some basic standards for enforcement of their TOS which are legal contracts and therefor fully under the jurisdiction of state law. The state has every right to put some basic rules for social media TOS, just as they do for rental agreements, professional contracts, business contracts etc. etc. etc.
Paid shills like Mike have one goal and that is to keep social media the wild wild west where basic our common law doesn't apply.
Despite Mikes intentionally false headline "Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism" the bill in no way forces any site to host "Holocaust Denialism." It simply sets out some basic standards for content removal, appeal, and basic right to cure.
The section of the bill the democrats tried to amend to add their pet issues is strictly for overt criminal activity specifically child sexual abuse and direct threats of physical violence.
This is the sick mindset of people like Mike. Someone like Mike so blinded by their own ideology does not see how adding "Vaccine Misinformation" to a section reserved for the most heinous of crimes like child sexual abuse, makes a mocker of the seriousness of child sexual abuse.
Mike is fundamentally sick if he thinks that is at all appropriate.
As said before I'm a gifted athlete. I still coach my respective sport and I have had to deal with this kind of pet issue craziness form people like Mike. In many states across the nations schoools have TAD polis, that stands for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The problem with such polices is that they treat them the same because an anti-tobacco lobby is so powerful. You end up with a system that treats vaping the same as it treats meth.
This reduces the seriousness of hard drugs in the kids minds. It also hurts enforcement because you have administrators focusing of vape pens when you got some kids addicted to meth.
This has happened to me you have 5 players being suspended for up to 30 days for vaping while you got a kid addicted to meth and the admin wont do anything to save the kid because "Its only his first TAD offense." His god damn spleen was shitting down and we couldn't get the school to step in at all.
This is the specific evil that Mike is advocating for.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re: Utility does not matter.
Taxis are not a utility. Ships are not a utility. Television is not a utility. Something does not have to be a utility to be treated as a common carrier. Try again genius!
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
"The employers of a public school teacher are the school district. The district reports directly to the voters, as the board members are elected officials. "
That's a big misunderstanding of what school boards are. School boards are established by the state legislatures and only exist from the authority delegated to them from the legislature to the local school board.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
In what world do I have to agree with everything anyone says if I'm to agree with them at all. I'm not a leftist moron. I know this is a hard concept for someone such as yourself to grasp. You clearly have no sense of self so being an individual onto yourself is a hard concept for you.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Save It For The Water Cooler
Almost all social media companies today enjoy larger market shares in their respective niches than either Standard Oil or Bell Telephone did at the time of their breakup.
A legal monopoly is not the same as the literal etymological definition of monopoly.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Re:
"How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?"
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
Finally, and most importantly: Do you truly believe the government should have the absolute legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host—even (and especially) if you’re the owner/operator of such a service?"
How do I limit text telling me that a local credit union account is about to be canceled and they need by SS#?
Shut up! These issues exist with all communication and are not unique to social media.
The bigger question is why do you not support equal protection under the law. Why should a small cell provider have to jump through more regulatory hoops than Facebook?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh How Time Flies
Well Im a big dude. 6'2" 250lb former college athlete. I'll beat the piss out of you. You are the kind of person who needed get the @#%^ kicked out of them more when they were a kid.
I've worked security at establishments where some nut job was doing exactly what you describe. You cool the individual, call the cops and try your best to lead them too the door. Until they engage in physical violence you cant physically throw them out, in most states got to keep adding that caveat in there or morons like you will cite Texas/Alabama or some other backwards ass law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh and I would also like to add Mike that you apparently favor including "vaccine misinformation" in a section in such a way as to make it on par with " preventing the sexual exploitation of children."
You are sick Mike! That you even think its appropriate to equate the two is sick!
Next >>