Today I saw the following tweet:
Amazon Web Services terms and conditions now include a zombie clause. pic.twitter.com/7D6gAKeDLu
/cc @NeilDavidson
— Software Tools (@softwareverify) February 9, 2016
This reminded me of an experiment in London in which the terms of use of a WiFi hotspot promised free WiFi but only if “the recipient agreed to assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity”. Six people signed up. (Go here for the Guardian’s account.) The idea is that by putting something outrageous in a contract, you get to see whether people actually read it. (This approach is a variation on the famous no-brown-M&Ms clause in Van Halen’s concert contract.)
That might have been the motivation behind the Amazon Web Services zombie clause, but I suspect that it was as much a matter of having some fun with a kind of writing that begs not to be read by anyone.
A more extreme example of that sort of irreverence is the “heist clause” contained in the notorious contract between Wu-Tang Clan and Martin Shkreli. (Go here for the Verge’s account.)
There’s no reason why, within limits, you can’t use your contracts to build your, um, brand.
I sense an impending discussion of severability clauses.
This is good for a few laughs, but I find that it’s better to limit nonsensical contract language to a blog post; stay tuned for my April 1 post at http://www.busklaw.blogspot.com tentatively titled ” A Force Majeure Clause for the New Millennium.”