No Unilateral Post-Contractual Alterations

It's not every day that I agree with a ruling out of the Ninth Circus Court, but I'm fully behind this one:

"Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side," wrote the judges. "Indeed, a party can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party's consent before doing so... This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until accepted."

The court went on to state that a pre-agreement to unannounced changes to contractual terms is not a valid, legally-binding part of a contract.

As someone who reviews and negotiates contracts on a near-daily basis, I'm delighted with the decision. I've encountered such language before and always negotiated it out. Now I don't have to worry about horse-trading for it; I'll simply point out that it's illegal according the latest federal court ruling. That should irritate a few lawyers -- which fact alone makes it worthwhile.