Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW June Newsletter: Forcing Business Behavior Changes Through Buried Contract Provisions: Salesforce and Camping World


As reported by The Washington Post, business-software giant Salesforce recently instituted a policy barring its retailer customers from using its technology to sell semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15 used in numerous mass shootings. One such customer is Camping World, whose Gander Outdoors division sells many "AR" and other semi-automatic rifles. 

 Rather than approach Camping World/Gander, a "leading" Salesforce customer, and negotiating the termination of their semi-automatic rifle sales in exchange for some benefit (such as a software discount), Salesforce was tricky. They buried a provision barring the sale of semi-automatic rifles in the acceptable-use policy ("AUP") binding on Camping World/Gander:
Salesforce wants to force Camping World/Gander to make a major change to its business model via an addition to their AUP that is irrelevant to their customer's licensed use of Salesforce software. And although sneaky, I bet that the Salesforce master software license agreement contains the customer's promise to follow their AUP "as Salesforce may amend it from time to time." Which brings us to the question of why Camping World/Gander is continuing to sell semi-automatic weapons to this day, apparently in violation of the Salesforce AUP. (Hey Salesforce and Camping World executives out there, what's the deal?) Doesn't Salesforce worry that if they don't enforce this provision in their AUP, they may be estopped from enforcing it in the future? I'd certainly worry about that!

 The tactic of forcing business behavior changes (arguably for the greater good) through buried contract provisions is worth considering. To a large extent, Salesforce is acting to ban assault rifles because Congress and the courts have failed to do so, thanks to the Second Amendment. (Could the Founding Fathers have foreseen the ruthless killing efficiency of a semi-automatic rifle  - or that just about any goofball can buy one?) As a tool to effect a noble purpose, I admire Salesforce's creative contracting.  

 But what I can't get over is Salesforce using its considerable business leverage on a valued customer to change their business model without prior discussions. And doing it with a "fine print" mandatory - and arguably irrelevant - contract provision (rising to the level of a "gotcha") is repugnant to me. That's not how reasonable persons should conduct business. 

 Are you game for the Salesforce approach to banning semi-automatic rifles (and the other nasties listed in their AUP)? Or (regardless of your feelings about the Second Amendment), do your sympathies lie with Camping World? Reasonable minds may differ! 
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....
Post a Comment
Read more

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Another Trump NDA Bites the Dust!

  In my August 2020 newsletter, we discussed lessons from the New York Supreme Court's rejection of the Trump family NDA. Drafting lesson #1 is the need to specifically describe the information covered by the NDA rather than vague references.  Unfortunately for Trump, this lesson wasn't learned, as evidenced by a recent New York U.S. District Court decision in the case of  J essica Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.   Plaintiff Denson was employed as a national phone bank administrator for the 2016 Trump campaign. Before she was hired, she signed the standard Trump employment contract containing broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. Confidential Information was defined as: ...all information (whether or not embodied in any media) of a private, proprietary or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential, including, but not limited to, any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/o...
Post a Comment
Read more