> Any Smart Hold events created by Clockwise (such as Focus Time, Travel Time, Meeting Breaks, and Personal Calendar synced events) will be removed from your calendar. Flexible Meetings will stop moving and the green Clockwise sparkle will be removed.
I'm French and occasionally like to (re)read about the revolution period and every time I come to the calendar stuff I can't help but think "Really? This was stuff we wanted to spend time on?"
There is a difference between the liquor store checking your ID, and every store you even walk passed, checking your ID just in case you're on the way to try and buy liquor.
Under the hood you're still calling into BEAM/OTP but most operations are covered in gleam, at least I've very rarely needed to FFI into Erlang (couple times to extend what a library provides with a custom edge case).
gleam/io, mist, gleam/otp, sqlight, gleam_pgo, etc.
Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable.
Vader might say he can change the deal at any point, but consumer law generally requires that what is purchased reflects what is advertised.
If you don't agree to a new set of terms, because the service is changed from what you purchased, then both parties generally should still be party to the previous.
Notification alone, is not enough. Agreement is required.
Again, the previous terms allow them to terminate the previous contract, and ... hey look, they're exercising their rights, listed in the original contract, which you did in fact agree to.
If you want to continue using the services, and know about the change, then that's legally, as cited in the actual court documents in OP, an agreement to the new terms.
> Clauses existing, have very little to do with it being enforceable.
You cannot cancel a contract for "any reason". In most jurisdictions that will be an unenforceable term.
Usage here being consent, is an unpublished ruling. It does not set precedent, it refers only to these specific circumstances, where clients sought to understand terms before choosing to continue usage.
Legally, usage with foreknowledge, is consent. Usage where you already agreed to terms implicitly, because you sought and understood them beforehand.
It will not always be an agreement to new terms.
> This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
The OP and I both explicitly cites their source for "usage + knowledge = consent", and it comes from fairly basic contract law. Are you saying this ruling cites another unpublished ruling or something?
Doesn't really sound like it.
reply