So far as I know, you can

if you could do that legally, everyone would do it as a matter of course

Whether you're smart enough to include that is another matter

and i know for a fact they don't

it's not a matter of 'being smart enough'

Short of committing a crime, you can contract to do pretty much anything.

that is what corporate lawyers get paid the big bucks for

again, that doesn't add up

i also know that credit card companies cannot do this either

Ive had those clauses in renters agreements before. It may be a tort thing where you can be disqualified from using such a clause? I know tech in general uses all kinds of legal loopholes to avoid culpability for various user behaviors

in fact, currently, the way credit card companies operate is 'pseudo-legal'

that is my point too @D Two Hands, it's either tort or contract

can't be both

The only reason I can think of why severability might be excluded from a home improvement contract is cuz of liability. If part of the project fails, it could damage the structural integrity of the whole. Again, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping a severability clause, but if there is, that could be the reason.

yt TOS is trying to play both sides; tort AND contract

Pretty much the entirety of law boils down to liability and who is responsible for what

Lets be honest though, most companies are only operating psuedo-legally. Everyone has the "official manual" and "how we actually do things manual" so to say

Contract > tort

true, but the same document cannot cover both

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/633967804483371009/642071008525942804/hillary-plan-to-be-president-2020.jpg

further, without a pen and ink signature..

that tos isn't shit

False

Is there not precedent for clicks being a signatory substitute?

electronic signatures are only valid for limited types of agreements

We learned about that when I studied law. A wet ink signature is merely EVIDENCE of consent, not consent itself. This is why electronic signatures usually have a clause to the effect of "by clicking here, you effectively consent."

Thought there was, but then the whole thing is legally grey. I know EULA is officially no longer legally binding and TOS are very similar in nature.

Outward actions give rise to inward thoughts, or something along those lines.

you are agreeing with me

Electronic signatures are valid

'evidence of consent' is correct

but that isn't BINDING

Click here to agree to this contract that gives us your mind, body, and soul : 🔲

it just creates the APPEARENCE of consent

The only time it wouldn't be binding is in the case of duress or fraud in the inducement or unconscionability or something like that

which basically describes ANY tos

there is the other caveat too; both parties must be provided a COPY of the contract for reference

an immutable copy

The court considers a signature (electronic or otherwise) to be "good enough" evidence of consent for the aforementioned reason. If you didn't really wanna do it, why'd you sign where it says "you agree"?

last time i checked, electronic contracts are not immutable

that is just the current precedence though