Comment by p_l
8 months ago
Isn't changing the terms of a deal without even sending you a new contract pretty much illegal anywhere sane? Even between business entities?
8 months ago
Isn't changing the terms of a deal without even sending you a new contract pretty much illegal anywhere sane? Even between business entities?
We don't know (but the norm is) if the original contract had a sunset clause.
Almost every special rate I have ever negotiated had specific clauses about when the rate will end, even if there was no specific date there's always something about "rate is reviewed annually" or similar.
I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.
The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.
> The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.
This wasn't charity from Slack. They paid for the service, and they can migrate if it's truly necessary.
The special rate was charity.
8 replies →
> I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.
Well, that's what you have lawyers for.
Otherwise, agreed with your comment.
No, you don't. You have lawyers to assist managers in legal matters. But you can't simply throw a contract at a lawyer and ask "What do you think?" All the terms need to be understood by the manager. It is however reasonable to ask a lawyer "What does this say in normal language?" and "Is there any provision in this thing that sticks out as being really out of line or would trip us up if we had to litigate it?" Understanding a contract is not difficult. I've negotiated contracts with some of the largest companies in the world over my career and it only worked because I was also reading the contracts and interacting with the lawyer as a partner.
You have a lawyer to warn you about things you might not notice in your contract. But to not know your general payment terms comes off as pretty lazy.
1 reply →
In EU a vendor can amend a contract but it gives the client the opportunity to breach that contract without consequences.
On a smaller scale it happens on a monthly basis with telecomms - almost never with rates, but they amend privacy policy and stuff - as a customer a change in the contract gives you an opportunity to say you're not accepting new contract, within certain timeframe, and walk away.
I guess this is simmilar - they told them they are changing the contract, and under new circumstances they will have to pay this and that, but they are free to walk away and pay nothing.
Still a dick move.
> but they are free to walk away and pay nothing.
not so for a service which holds your data hostage (unless 'walking away' means you're also able to walk away with your data).
That's an interesting topic that someone should sic some lawyers on, tbqh.
Well, you can amend a contract, but you need to send the new conditions, and it gives the other party option of not accepting the new contract, which means either amending party needs to accept continuation under old contract, or dissolution of the contractual relationship with no fees/damages/etc for the party that didn't accept new contract.
The part that I find egregious is that apparently Slack didn't even send a new contract.
You need to be able and willing to fight the other party in court. I doubt anyone there is enthusiastic about that.
Depends on what you want to fight about.
If your rates were raised and you have not received new contract, if you can drop the service at that point, they can't collect including any cancellation fees.
If you want to continue using the service, that's a bit trickier.
The terms of the deal almost certainly specified they are allowed to change terms at their discretion in the future
"We can change the terms at our discretion" is a line that gets the book thrown at you in court, at least in EU, and that's the start of the humiliation conga for whoever tries to claim such a clause.
You cannot insist on a clause that lets you change the contract at your discretion and having the resulting amended contract be valid without acceptance by the other party.
You just explained why EU software startups do not cause VCs to rain money down on them.
1 reply →