Good comparison; there is a difference in that EULAs give you a consent button that you have to click; the idea is that, by clicking “I accept these terms,” you accept the terms.
I believe EULAs have still not been tried in court, but there is a difference between “I sent you something and so now we have a contract” and “I presented the terms and you voluntarily clicked the ‘I accept’ button and so now we have a contract.” The law does recognize “gentleman’s handshake” contracts (they’ve just been hard to prove), and EULAs would fall under that category of contract.
EULAs are untested, but what SovCit is trying is a gentleman’s handshake where the handshake is some arbitrary behavior that SovCit has defined as being the agreement terms. That’s where this would fall apart; in a verbal agreement, both parties agree not only to the contract, but to what constitutes agreement. One side can’t simply make a binding declaration and define what constitutes acceptance. It’s like saying, “You owe me $100,000. By breathing, you signify that you accept these terms.” In a court, you could reasonably argue that the fact that you agreed, spat in your, and shook on it is by convention a clear sign of acceptance and binding. It’d be impossible to successively argue that I sent you a contract stating that if you crossed the street it constituted acceptance. SovCit is trying the latter.
Good comparison; there is a difference in that EULAs give you a consent button that you have to click; the idea is that, by clicking “I accept these terms,” you accept the terms.
I believe EULAs have still not been tried in court, but there is a difference between “I sent you something and so now we have a contract” and “I presented the terms and you voluntarily clicked the ‘I accept’ button and so now we have a contract.” The law does recognize “gentleman’s handshake” contracts (they’ve just been hard to prove), and EULAs would fall under that category of contract.
EULAs are untested, but what SovCit is trying is a gentleman’s handshake where the handshake is some arbitrary behavior that SovCit has defined as being the agreement terms. That’s where this would fall apart; in a verbal agreement, both parties agree not only to the contract, but to what constitutes agreement. One side can’t simply make a binding declaration and define what constitutes acceptance. It’s like saying, “You owe me $100,000. By breathing, you signify that you accept these terms.” In a court, you could reasonably argue that the fact that you agreed, spat in your, and shook on it is by convention a clear sign of acceptance and binding. It’d be impossible to successively argue that I sent you a contract stating that if you crossed the street it constituted acceptance. SovCit is trying the latter.