[JohnFen]

I'm no lawyer, but I've never heard this. On the face of it, I don't think it's true. Or, if it is, then the vast majority of the consumer contracts I've entered into are invalid. I'd think that if that were the case, we'd hear more about the consequences of that.

I believe that any contract that doesn't contain "unconscionable" or illegal terms, is agreed to by all parties, and that involves consideration, is valid. I don't think that the ability to negotiate the terms is a factor. It's hard to see why it would be -- if I get a "take it or leave it" contract that I can't accept, then I can always just not enter into it.

[salawat]

Meeting of the minds is what the other poster is probably closing in on in regards to the qualities of a valid contract. Problem is, most click throughs are made in such a way as to offer no channel through which negotiation is able to occur, and even if that channel were available, most businesses would avoid maintaining it's efficiency as it massively vomplicates pricing and business system implementations if all of a sudden you're dealing with potentially millions of slightly different sets of terms.

The Courts have, in my opinion, abdicated their responsibility in ensuring that a contract is considered invalid by recognizing take-it-or-leave-it clickthrough licenses as valid.

Not doing so, and requiring a negotiation pipeline, would rein in these types of encroachments, because the burden incurred by playing these types of games would provide a better feedback loop to companies on what is vs. is not conscionable.