Re Parler

Thu Jan 14 13:06:09 UTC 2021

On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0025 at netconsultings.com wrote:

>https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
>7.2 Termination.
>(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any
>reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services
>for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this
>Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance
>notice.

How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?  That is an assumption of fact not in evidence.  Furthermore, that provision requires at least 30 days notice.  If that clause was in effect AND it was used as you suggest THEN UNLESS at least 30 days notice was given the plaintiff Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or aggravated/punitive damages for Amazon's violation of the contract terms.

>How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section
>230?

It does not.

>See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny
>outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a)
>of their customer agreement.

Why anyone in their right mind would enter into such a contract is beyond my ken and would only be done by a lunatic.

>With regards to business continuity,

>My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts
>(and 30 days is pretty standard as well),

I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party.  Plus you are also claiming that a "contract of adhesion" is a valid contract, which it is not (at least not in countries with rational legal systems).

>I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but
>I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router
>vendors?

That is your own business issue and as a party to the contract, you are free to negotiate contract terms as you please.

>Do you folks?

>If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your
>support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and
>you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2
>months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.

So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours.  I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free).  Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant.

>Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under
>(yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have
>contractual terms governing this case?

Unless you are stupid, you do.  However in my experience there is a large quantity of stupid people in the world.

>What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the
>vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually
>legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..

Yes.

-- 
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.