You can put anything in a contract, but that doesn't make the contract enforceable. And the way our legal system is set up, you can't challenge the legality of a contract clause without (someone) entering into it.
Anything not enforceable shouldn't be in the contract in the first place. The only purpose of contracts is to enforce earlier promises when people don't agree anymore.
Also, even court enforcement of contracts has its limits - you just go outside the borders of a country, and they can't (easily) make you fulfill your contract.
That said, I am all for court enforcement of contracts. In fact, I wish that the courts would respect, if not enforce, far more contracts than they do.
Why is that you, and other people here, are treating a contract like it's law? Companies can put pretty much anything they want in a contract, it does not mean its enforceable. You have to take into account your jurisdiction.
That's not how contracts work; just because you CAN sue someone doesn't mean you MUST. Nor does not enforcing against one party mean they can't against another.
By this logic, anything is enforceable because some people will think it's enforceable. Your point is a valid one, but it's also good to tell everyone that these contracts are not legally enforceable!
Contracts have limits determined by statutes and common law. People also have rights that they legally can't give away in a contract.
reply