Although a customer isn't obligated to obey TOS conditions that are considered legally unreasonable(which has a whole bunch of bits and pieces like unfair terms and etc., I'm in a common law country so it's even a little more tricky to hammer down exactly).
That's part of why a seller can't just say 'no refunds' in their TOS and try and enforce that.
I'd be tempted to say that in a British Commonwealth common law country, the seller forbidding the buyer from posting any review preemptively as part of the agreement would be considered an unfair term, as 'contrary to good faith'. There's a risk the seller would not do the same quality of work on an un-reviewable product as they would on one the consumer was free to review.
Honestly, I think a buyer would be in their right to post a review regardless of whether the seller states that or not. Unfair terms comes into play when trying to lay blame for a breach, so if the seller tried to claim the buyer breached when they posted the review they'd be likely to loose that case because their TOS was contrary to good faith. It'd be an expensive legal mess that the seller probably wouldn't win, and if they manage to have things side their way that the customer breached posting the review, then they'd have to try and prove they actually were damaged by the review, that it caused them to loss business or they might just walk out with the ol' $1 punitive + court costs ruling. It'd be an interesting case though!
The maker/artist would probably end up just having to blacklist any customer that posted a review and not do business with them again. That's probably the only practical way they could try and "enforce" this.
But in a moral, common sense way you are totally right that the customer should read the TOS and if something like this, legally enforceable in court or not, in the TOS sends up red flags/bad vibes just take their money and nope on out of there.
And the seller should really just not waste their time and damage their good will having an unreasonable TOS clause to begin with in.
no subject
That's part of why a seller can't just say 'no refunds' in their TOS and try and enforce that.
I'd be tempted to say that in a British Commonwealth common law country, the seller forbidding the buyer from posting any review preemptively as part of the agreement would be considered an unfair term, as 'contrary to good faith'. There's a risk the seller would not do the same quality of work on an un-reviewable product as they would on one the consumer was free to review.
Honestly, I think a buyer would be in their right to post a review regardless of whether the seller states that or not. Unfair terms comes into play when trying to lay blame for a breach, so if the seller tried to claim the buyer breached when they posted the review they'd be likely to loose that case because their TOS was contrary to good faith. It'd be an expensive legal mess that the seller probably wouldn't win, and if they manage to have things side their way that the customer breached posting the review, then they'd have to try and prove they actually were damaged by the review, that it caused them to loss business or they might just walk out with the ol' $1 punitive + court costs ruling. It'd be an interesting case though!
The maker/artist would probably end up just having to blacklist any customer that posted a review and not do business with them again. That's probably the only practical way they could try and "enforce" this.
But in a moral, common sense way you are totally right that the customer should read the TOS and if something like this, legally enforceable in court or not, in the TOS sends up red flags/bad vibes just take their money and nope on out of there.
And the seller should really just not waste their time and damage their good will having an unreasonable TOS clause to begin with in.