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 eternityâ€. 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.”