RE: Hoover's

["Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>]

I agree with Rick. But rather than simply striking this sort of language
from a license, I suggest rewriting the language so that any changes to
the license require the approval of both parties.

Agreements will change from time to time, and it's nice to have some
language that describes how proposed changes are handled, as long as that
language applies to both parties in the same way.

But any unilateral terms for changing an agreement/license should be
stricken. Otherwise, as Rick says, "it renders the rest of the contract
meaningless."

Bernie Sloan

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rickand@unr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:22 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Hoover's

> For example:  Hoover's reserves the right to make any changes to these
> Terms and Conditions at any time. The Client is bound to the changes in
> these Terms and Conditions as long as the Client's subscription is active.

I would never sign a contract with this language in it.  It renders the
rest of the contract meaningless, since it gives the seller the right to
change the terms in any way it seems fit and binds the buyer to those
changed terms.  If Hoover's is unwilling to take this language out, I
would refuse to buy the product.

-------------
Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu