undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrmc9y ago0 comments

> What I meant was that, if the license's meaning was disputed in court, the court should agree that it meant what the company intended for it to mean.

And my point is that sometimes what the company intends/wants is illegal. And the courts should

For example, a company might want employees to sign away rights to minimum wage. We can clearly see what the company intends in that contract, but the courts will not agree with it.

"Contracts are sacred and unbreakable" is an ethical/legal stance associated with libertarianism, and it is not what many countries follow.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

danarmak9y ago

Yes, of course, some things are illegal and cannot be agreed to in contracts. I'm not saying contracts should be sacred. I'm saying the contract's meaning should be as clear as possible so courts will agree the license meant what the company intended it to mean. The court can still say the license is illegal or unenforceable, but there should not be a dispute whether it means one thing, which is legal, or another, which isn't.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse