Contract Law Seminar 3- Applying Contract law to real life (12/02/18)
a) Legal significance of statements;
Tablets would aim to be shipped in May 2015 (November 2014)
o From fundraising campaign statement
o Said this was subject to change and they would be kept updated via email and the blog
o Delivery was “subject to best efforts and not guaranteed”
Most wouldn’t receive a tablet but backers wouldn’t be empty-handed (December
2015)
o From a blog post
o Ship a small batch to early backers in early 2016
o Cant fulfil all contributors but “can be sure you will not end up empty handed”
o Might have “positive surprises in stock for you” but more to follow
Contributors to receive 50% of money back and other 50% possibly to follow
(January 2016)
Indiegogo’s terms of use
o Users (campaign owners, contributors and other visitors to the site) bound by these
terms of use, private policy, all applicable laws and all conditions or policies
referenced in the terms
o Campaign owners can offer perks to contributors (not offered for sale) but Indiegogo
makes no representation of the quality, safety, morality or legality posted on the
service
o Indiegogo doesn’t represent that perks will be delivered or that perks will be as
described. Service used at own risk
o Campaign owners legally bound to perform any promise/commitment (including
delivery of perks)
o If campaign owner can’t perform they will work with contributors individually to
come to a mutually satisfactory resolution
Can see that this is what they are attempting to do roughly (December 2015 blog
post and January 2016 statement)
o Indiegogo has no obligation to be involved in these disputes
o In a dispute Indiegogo may provide contributors with the campaign owners contact
information for the two parties to resolve the dispute
b) Dealing with the contradictions between Indiegogo’s terms and Jolla’s statements
Jolla say the delivery of perks is “not guaranteed” but the terms say they are bound to
deliver any promises/commitments
o Can they say not guaranteed to make this statement not a promise/commitment? Or are
they making a promise/commitment but going against the terms set by Indiegogo?
If they have got round the statement being a promise/commitment are they
legally bound to do anything?
If they have made a promise/commitment, Jolla are (according to Indiegogo’s
terms) “legally bound” to deliver the promised perk (the tablets) which they
have quite clearly stated they will not be carrying out (except for a few early
backers)
Some early backers will receive the tables (in line with their promise) but not everyone
will (breaching the terms?)
o Don’t say in the blog post what they will give the other backers, is this coming to a
mutually satisfactory conclusion?
They are promising refunds (50% at the moment) to backers, this fits with the terms
saying parties must work towards a “mutually satisfactory resolution”
o Are the backers satisfied with this? If they are then Jolla are in line with the terms
o Also in the December 2015 blog post they mention working “to find a solution” fitting
with the contributors and the company(including wider implications)
a) Legal significance of statements;
Tablets would aim to be shipped in May 2015 (November 2014)
o From fundraising campaign statement
o Said this was subject to change and they would be kept updated via email and the blog
o Delivery was “subject to best efforts and not guaranteed”
Most wouldn’t receive a tablet but backers wouldn’t be empty-handed (December
2015)
o From a blog post
o Ship a small batch to early backers in early 2016
o Cant fulfil all contributors but “can be sure you will not end up empty handed”
o Might have “positive surprises in stock for you” but more to follow
Contributors to receive 50% of money back and other 50% possibly to follow
(January 2016)
Indiegogo’s terms of use
o Users (campaign owners, contributors and other visitors to the site) bound by these
terms of use, private policy, all applicable laws and all conditions or policies
referenced in the terms
o Campaign owners can offer perks to contributors (not offered for sale) but Indiegogo
makes no representation of the quality, safety, morality or legality posted on the
service
o Indiegogo doesn’t represent that perks will be delivered or that perks will be as
described. Service used at own risk
o Campaign owners legally bound to perform any promise/commitment (including
delivery of perks)
o If campaign owner can’t perform they will work with contributors individually to
come to a mutually satisfactory resolution
Can see that this is what they are attempting to do roughly (December 2015 blog
post and January 2016 statement)
o Indiegogo has no obligation to be involved in these disputes
o In a dispute Indiegogo may provide contributors with the campaign owners contact
information for the two parties to resolve the dispute
b) Dealing with the contradictions between Indiegogo’s terms and Jolla’s statements
Jolla say the delivery of perks is “not guaranteed” but the terms say they are bound to
deliver any promises/commitments
o Can they say not guaranteed to make this statement not a promise/commitment? Or are
they making a promise/commitment but going against the terms set by Indiegogo?
If they have got round the statement being a promise/commitment are they
legally bound to do anything?
If they have made a promise/commitment, Jolla are (according to Indiegogo’s
terms) “legally bound” to deliver the promised perk (the tablets) which they
have quite clearly stated they will not be carrying out (except for a few early
backers)
Some early backers will receive the tables (in line with their promise) but not everyone
will (breaching the terms?)
o Don’t say in the blog post what they will give the other backers, is this coming to a
mutually satisfactory conclusion?
They are promising refunds (50% at the moment) to backers, this fits with the terms
saying parties must work towards a “mutually satisfactory resolution”
o Are the backers satisfied with this? If they are then Jolla are in line with the terms
o Also in the December 2015 blog post they mention working “to find a solution” fitting
with the contributors and the company(including wider implications)
