[throw1234567891]

Would you call a trade-in a fraudulent tactic?

[lmm]

Trade ins are fine. A contractual commitment to not buy hardware sounds like illegal restraint of trade.

[brookst]

How? It’s a contract. Should I be allowed to pay a landscaper less if I agree to not do part of the work myself?

I don’t understand the desire to tell totally anonymous third parties the terms under which they are allowed to deal with each other.

[lmm]

> It’s a contract

Many kinds of contracts are illegal, including those that are anticompetitive in certain ways.

> Should I be allowed to pay a landscaper less if I agree to not do part of the work myself?

No?

[InsideOutSanta]

Trade-ins are voluntary.

[efficax]

so are buybacks. you choose to sign the contract. there's no way they didn't have an escape clause, although likely it meant not using the cloud provider anymore

[InsideOutSanta]

> so are buybacks. you choose to sign the contract

Right, so they're not voluntary.

[anomaly_]

Literally what? Do you understand what is being proposed?

[InsideOutSanta]

Yes. "You choose to sign the contract" is not a reasonable argument, for two reasons:

1. There is one supplier, so you have no choice. 2. Even if you had a choice to sign the contract, this still means that it's not the same as a trade-in, because trade-ins are always voluntary, but once you have signed the contract, a right of first refusal is not.

In general, the "you chose to sign the contract" argument is a poor justification for bad contracts. If the contract is bad, it is bad regardless of whether you chose to sign it.

[fsuts]

B2b contracts have less protection in law than consumer contracts

As businesses are expected to be more informed and equal in the negotiations

[efficax]

there are lots of cloud suppliers besides whichever big name cloud this is, you can even find other cloud providers in seattle