The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for
EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.
Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except
for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it
differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

John John wrote:

The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain
and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no
law.

John

Bob I wrote:

Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.

John John wrote:

I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
the EULA legalities. But...

An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you
will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and
accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were
to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted
your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
law, it is an illegal contract.

John

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
have been what customers want.