Why would my TOS not be allowed?

Bottom line: I'm being told the the terms I've come up with for the OSRS service provider on my account are not enforceable.

Background: I've used many services providers with just about all of them quoting a completion time and then exceeding that time by 50% or more. Most service providers have terms that are very much in the providers favor. To counteract this, I've written my own TOS that are very much in my favor (the buyer)...there's no denying that. However, I'm not hiding what these TOS are, and I've got several service providers agreeing to these terms. An admin can check my PMs for the most recent ones. These terms are written to protect from a service provider quoting something they can't deliver on. Additionally, they protect from bans and service providers who quit during the middle of the service. No one is forcing the service provider to agree to these.

Question: If both parties agree to the terms that are clearly written then why wouldn't they be enforceable?

Terms I've written:

1. I will not go first; however, I'm not opposed to a middleman.
2. I will pay 7 days after completion of service. 7 Days is for account to rest to ensure no bans.
3. Both parties will agree on a deadline. If that deadline is not met then no payment will be made.
4. All supplies for skilling, questing, membership, etc. will be provided by service provider. Include these as part of your quote. Just remember...if you don't complete the service by our agreed upon deadline then I will not reimburse nor will I pay for any levels or quest completed. I AM NOT PROVIDING ANYTHING.
5. Any ban, mute, or derogatory mark on my account will result in zero payment. This is applicable even if the offense is able to be quashed.
6. I will not log on to the account other than to complete tutorial island.
7. If account training/questing remains dormant for 5 or more days then I reserve the right to cancel service with no payment due to service provider.

Thread in question:Quest Cape/Max Main from Scratch--BIG ORDER

 

It would be best to talk with the person that told you that it's not enforceable and ask them why. Though who told you that?

 

[Superfluous]

I'm strongly in favor of a competitive market for ToS; that is, people should compete on ToS in the same way they might compete on price, speed, or reputation. I'm also strongly in favor of you writing ToS that are buyer-friendly.

However, the two terms that jump out at me right now are #3 and #5:
- For #3, we have a long history of not enforcing estimated completion dates as binding. I'm not sure why we started doing this, but I can't recall us saying anything other than "just get on with it" if a service that was supposed to take, say, 10 days takes 11 instead. We also usually use a percentage-based approach to disputes regarding partially complete jobs, so if 80% of a service was completed as intended, we would ask for 80% of payment to be disbursed for that work.
- For #5, this is vague. You might want to set some boundaries to reduce the likelihood that you and your service provider interpret things differently (e.g. "from the time of payment to 48 hours after the completion of the service; if I log in after the completion of the service doing so nullifies this term").

Obviously none of this matters unless you and your service provider get into a dispute about things. I'd be curious to see those reports but hope you can strike a balance before agreeing to a service that doesn't end in the report a scammer section.

 

Just to clarify, I've used these terms in the past and the trades went smoothly so it was never an issue. I'm not hoping that a provider will mess up and not get paid. I just want terms that incentive them to perform to what they promise. In this case, I'm getting clarification before someone starts on a new order.

It would be best to talk with the person that told you that it's not enforceable and ask them why. Though who told you that?

I had reached out to a MM to hold my BTC for this new order. He suggested we have staff provide their input. He reached out to @Techie who stated that, in the event of a dispute, staff would probably rule against my deadline terms. Not sure if he wants to chime in here or not?

I'm strongly in favor of a competitive market for ToS; that is, people should compete on ToS in the same way they might compete on price, speed, or reputation. I'm also strongly in favor of you writing ToS that are buyer-friendly.

However, the two terms that jump out at me right now are #3 and #5:
- For #3, we have a long history of not enforcing estimated completion dates as binding. I'm not sure why we started doing this, but I can't recall us saying anything other than "just get on with it" if a service that was supposed to take, say, 10 days takes 11 instead. We also usually use a percentage-based approach to disputes regarding partially complete jobs, so if 80% of a service was completed as intended, we would ask for 80% of payment to be disbursed for that work.
- For #5, this is vague. You might want to set some boundaries to reduce the likelihood that you and your service provider interpret things differently (e.g. "from the time of payment to 48 hours after the completion of the service; if I log in after the completion of the service doing so nullifies this term").

Obviously none of this matters unless you and your service provider get into a dispute about things. I'd be curious to see those reports but hope you can strike a balance before agreeing to a service that doesn't end in the report a scammer section.

In regards to #3, many of those disputes either had no terms on what happens if the completion time goes way past the quoted time or terms were provider written such as completion time being strictly an estimate and not binding. I've just written terms that are the opposite of that.

For your point on #5, I could clean that up some or add it to #2 which clarifies the time after service complete.

Bottom line- I've got 2-3 service providers wanting this potential order. They've all seen the terms as written above and agree to them but if the terms won't mean anything in a dispute then I'll hold off.

 

[Poat]

I had reached out to a MM to hold my BTC for this new order. He suggested we have staff provide their input. He reached out to @Techie who stated that, in the event of a dispute, staff would probably rule against my deadline terms. Not sure if he wants to chime in here or not?

(my opinion) This term seems like more motivation to keep them on track with their own deadline than it is to get free services so with that said I'm sure if someone was lets say making you a Dragon slayer 2 account and was 3 quests off on the deadline day as long as its done by the next day or so both party's would be happy with the service. (This is what I think techie meant by if there was a report it would be handled in their favor).

However on the other hand where lets use the same example they are making the DS2 account and by deadline day they only have 120qp/200qp required where it looks like there will be a clear difference between the quoted time and actual completion I think this is where id agree with your terms that you BOTH agreed to. I think it would be fair to say this would go way over the deadline and you wouldn't be liable to pay for the services.

 

Techie is incompetent. I agree with your statements in this thread about him being incompetent.

 

I had reached out to a MM to hold my BTC for this new order. He suggested we have staff provide their input. He reached out to @Techie who stated that, in the event of a dispute, staff would probably rule against my deadline terms. Not sure if he wants to chime in here or not?

To clarify, it was @Yoshiki and not @Techie that got back to me first and gave me the information. I decided to reach out to a mod regarding the ToS with permission from @Trey first. I've seen rulings where Sythe has overridden individual ToS, so I figured I'd warn him that Sythe may not honor that ToS if issues were to arise. I know if I were in the position of the moderator, which I'm certainly not, but I would've ruled against two of the clauses in his ToS. Specifically, "Both parties will agree on a deadline. If that deadline is not met then no payment will be made." and "If account training/questing remains dormant for 5 or more days then I reserve the right to cancel service with no payment due to service provider."


TL;DR: Just trying to cover my back as the potential middleman for this trade so that it goes as smooth as possible.

 

To clarify, it was @Yoshiki and not @Techie that got back to me first and gave me the information. I decided to reach out to a mod regarding the ToS with permission from @Trey first. I've seen rulings where Sythe has overridden individual ToS, so I figured I'd warn him that Sythe may not honor that ToS if issues were to arise. I know if I were in the position of the moderator, which I'm certainly not, but I would've ruled against two of the clauses in his ToS. Specifically, "Both parties will agree on a deadline. If that deadline is not met then no payment will be made." and "If account training/questing remains dormant for 5 or more days then I reserve the right to cancel service with no payment due to service provider."


TL;DR: Just trying to cover my back as the potential middleman for this trade so that it goes as smooth as possible.

Thanks for correction on mod. I just read your message wrong. My bad...

 

It's true that Sythe staff can overrule a tos, though IMO,

1. I will not go first; however, I'm not opposed to a middleman.
2. I will pay 7 days after completion of service. 7 Days is for account to rest to ensure no bans.
3. Both parties will agree on a deadline. If that deadline is not met then no payment will be made.
4. All supplies for skilling, questing, membership, etc. will be provided by service provider. Include these as part of your quote. Just remember...if you don't complete the service by our agreed upon deadline then I will not reimburse nor will I pay for any levels or quest completed. I AM NOT PROVIDING ANYTHING.
5. Any ban, mute, or derogatory mark on my account will result in zero payment. This is applicable even if the offense is able to be quashed.
6. I will not log on to the account other than to complete tutorial island.
7. If account training/questing remains dormant for 5 or more days then I reserve the right to cancel service with no payment due to service provider.

1. This is ok
2. This is ok
3. This is iffy as super mentioned because if the account is 99% complete and its 1 hour late it's kind of messed up not to pay. Though it's okay to say something like - "Both parties will agree on a deadline. If that deadline is not met then a percentage of the overall order will be refunded back" (you would need to figure the amount out though this would be done to favor the customer) Though for this to work, you would need a breakdown for each specific task being completed.
4. Same as above
5. This is somewhat ok, though your worker should explicitly know that accounts can be banned for providing a service on it before taking the order. The fact that the order not be paid out if its quashable is what may be disputed, as you still have a working account. Though if it's a perm ban then by all means, don't pay.
6. ok
7. Rl stuff does happen, but if the guy is on track and still has plenty of time i wouldn't just not pay him for the work he's done. It would be in your best interest to let him keep going.

Some other things to note -

can more than one person be on the account?
what happens if the account gets locked and you can't unlock it for some reason? or you take a couple days to get it locked?
don't forget about the our mm rule on btc values, 2 months is a long time

 

[Superfluous]

In regards to #3, many of those disputes either had no terms on what happens if the completion time goes way past the quoted time or terms were provider written such as completion time being strictly an estimate and not binding. I've just written terms that are the opposite of that.

For your point on #5, I could clean that up some or add it to #2 which clarifies the time after service complete.

Bottom line- I've got 2-3 service providers wanting this potential order. They've all seen the terms as written above and agree to them but if the terms won't mean anything in a dispute then I'll hold off.

@Andy mentioned this after my post yesterday and @Pirate mentioned it here, but I should mention that staff reserve the right to overrule ToS in cases where they are being abused. We have far more people trying to weasel their way out of ToS via some loophole than well-intentioned people trying to cover themselves with well-thought-out ToS. tl;dr - you should be fine with your ToS though some cleanup on #5 is probably wise.

And just to reiterate, all ToS are technically valid. If people agree to them, so be it; that's their prerogative. Staff will try not to get involved (again, let it be a competitive market etc.) unless people are trying to abuse them.

Hopefully that offers more clarify than confusion but let me know if not.

 

[Tyler]

regardless of if this is allowed or not, Nobody should ever agree to terms like that lmao it's a terrible idea for any service provider

 

Already tons of replies from mods about the validity of the TOS, but just wanted to add that when I first came to Sythe as a buyer, this was my first action too.
I noticed all TOS are heavily seller-favored, and when I would hire someone to work on my account, I would always enforce that they agreed to my TOS as the priority. It's just smart business.
From a service provider standpoint, I would never agree to your TOS, however, if someone approached me with something similar, I would definitely discuss it and find a mutual TOS that worked for both parties.