In the third part of decoding EULAs, we focus on support terms also known as updates or modifications.  As discussed previously, the EULA is the agreement containing the terms the user of a software program agrees to abide by in using the software.  Below are examples, that have been included in recent software agreements:

“Company

In the previous blog update (Part 1), I promised to continue decoding densely worded End User License Agreements (EULA). As discussed in the prior blog, the EULA is the agreement containing the terms the user of a software program agrees to abide by in using the software. In this blog, I address security. First, an excerpt from a standard form cloud services agreement:

“Company X shall notify Customer of any Unauthorized Access as soon as reasonably practical. In the event that any applicable law requires that any notice be given to Customer’s Service Users or clients, Company X acknowledges and agrees that Customer shall have control over the timing, content, and method of any required notification.”

Many companies
Continue Reading

Software has become an integral part of the construction world and its use is only growing. There are hundreds of software providers for project management systems, estimating, schedule tracking, BIM, accounting, project portal, dropbox, cloud service providers, the list goes on and on.

Typically, users of software are handed a lengthy agreement and asked to click their consent to the terms. We have all seen this type of agreement; anyone with a cell phone has likely absentmindedly agreed, with a click, to each software update. The writing is small.  The lines are spaced close together.  It goes on for page, after page, after page. The only distinguishing feature is occasionally the words are in all CAPS which feels bad-mannered and impolite.  Frankly, the first paragraph, if one gets that far, is enough to cure all insomniac tendencies one may have in a matter of seconds. These agreements are typically called End User License Agreements (EULA) and are the terms the user of a software program agrees to abide by in using the software.

There is a lot of important information hidden in all that small writing, such as: where a dispute is litigated (not always your home state); non-assignment without consent (i.e. if the software division or your company is purchased by another, you are required to update the terms of the agreement); indemnification; payment terms; termination; confidential information; etc.  That said, I believe there are the big four to be aware of:  1) scope of license; 2) support, aka updates/modifications; 3) security; and 4) limitation of liability.  This article and the three to follow will expand on these four concepts.  First, understanding the scope of your license and usage rights.

PART 1 – SCOPE OF LICENSE

Licenses come in all shapes and sizes.  The license can…
Continue Reading

The law of unintended consequences theorizes that the actions of people – especially government – often have effects that are surprising or unplanned. The idea of unintended consequences is generally traced back to English philosopher John Locke. In 1692, in a letter to Sir John Sommers, a member of England’s Parliament, Locke counseled the defeat of a parliamentary bill designed to regulate interest rates. Locke argued that instead of benefiting borrowers, as the bill intended, it would hurt them because creditors would find ways to circumvent the law, and those related costs would be borne by the borrowers, namely “widows, orphans and all those who have their estates in money.” John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising the Value of Money (1691). Oregon House Bill 2661 (“HB 2661”) should be considered with unintended consequences in mind.

HB 2661’s goal is to curtail or reduce the spiraling costs of new residential construction in order to make housing more affordable. While that is an admirable and laudable goal, the key features of this bill remind me of Locke’s letter to Sommers and his concerns about that century’s old bill to regulate interest rates.

HB 2661’s key features include:


Continue Reading

Last month’s Oregon Supreme Court decision in Ransom v. Radiology Specialists of the Northwest, 363 Or 552 (2018) will likely have far-reaching impacts on how discovery is conducted in construction defect cases in Oregon. Ransom involved a plaintiff’s claim for alleged medical negligence case against two of the plaintiff’s former radiologists for alleged failure to properly read her imaging scans, which the plaintiff further alleged led to misdiagnosing her cancer as Stage II instead of Stage IV. Id. at 555-56. At issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff’s attorney could seek an answer from the radiologists about their current interpretation of the imaging scans for the plaintiff. Id. During the deposition the radiologists both testified that they did not have an independent memory of interpreting certain scans back at the time they reviewed such scans. Id. When the plaintiff’s attorney thereafter asked the radiologists to review those same scans during their deposition and answer questions about certain markings identified on the scan, defense counsel objected and instructed the radiologists not to answer on the grounds the questions impermissibly sought expert testimony and/or called for information protected by attorney-client privilege. Id. A trial court later concurred with the defense’s objection and prohibited the radiologists from answering the questions about the present-day interpretations of the scans. Id. at 557. On a writ of mandamus filed by the plaintiff, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Id. at 572-73.

After reviewing the history surrounding Oregon’s prohibition on expert discovery as discussed in two prior cases, Stevens v. Czerniak, 336 Or 393 (2004) and Gwin v. Lynn, 344 Or 65 (2008), the Supreme Court held that “under ORCP 36B, a participating expert can be asked any questions relevant to his or her direct involvement in the events at issue.” Ransom, 363 Or at 567. The Court further found that because the questions did not ask the radiologists to provide information regarding the content of any attorney-client privileged communications, evidentiary rules on attorney-client privilege did not apply. Id. at 572.


Continue Reading

Construction defects plague many buildings in Florida, leading to lawsuits against developers and contractors. Seasoned developers have tried placing limits on their liability in a variety of ways, including inserting provisions in associations’ governing documents to limit associations’ and owners’ ability to bring a lawsuit against the developer. While developers have been creative in coming up with ways to limit liability exposure, this article focuses on what developers may not include in the governing documents that govern homeowner and condominium associations.

Governing Documents

To form a condominium or homeowners association, among other things, one must record a declaration in the respective county public records. Fla. Stat. § 718.104. “The declaration of condominium, which is the condominium’s ‘constitution,’ creates the condominium and ‘strictly governs the relationships among the condominium unit owners and the condominium association.’” Neuman, 861 So.2d at 496–97 (quoting Woodside Vill. Condo. Ass’n v. Jahren, 806 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2002)). The same applies to declarations for a homeowners association.

These declarations are binding documents and contain covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the community. Such covenants, conditions, and restrictions pertain to a range of topics including, but not limited to, whether pets are allowed; where to store garbage cans; regulation of TV antennas; and the operation of home businesses. The developer drafts these declarations and, while ambiguities are construed against the drafters,[1] developers are still given wide latitude in drafting declarations. Further, restrictions which may be found in a declaration of condominium are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity when challenged. See, e.g., Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081, 1091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Woodside Vill. Condo. Ass’n, 806 So.2d at 457).


Continue Reading

On April 3, 2018, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law HB 4144, which eases licensing requirements for construction contractors, especially those in rural areas. Under the new Construction Contractors Board rules, an individual with at least eight years of experience in the construction industry may apply for a new residential contractor’s license without having