Many websites and computer applications require users to agree to "Terms and Conditions". However, few users actually read them. Are such conditions halachically binding? Does it depend on whether such conditions are reasonable in some way?

  • 1
    similar judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/36924/…
    – user3113
    May 7, 2014 at 20:48
  • I remember hearing/reading recently that it WAS binding, although since I don't remember the details or any sources, I can't write an actual answer. May 7, 2014 at 21:31
  • You're signing a contract and agreeing to its contents. You only have yourself to blame if you don't know what you're agreeing to.
    – Shmuel
    May 7, 2014 at 21:55
  • 1
    @Shmuel Do you have a source?
    – Ypnypn
    May 7, 2014 at 21:58
  • 1
    Similar: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/13577
    – msh210
    May 7, 2014 at 22:28

1 Answer 1


The signature of a person on a contract or on any other document involved in any form of transaction between two or more parties is considered be an absolutely valid Halachic Kinyan. A person who has signed such a document may not back out of the agreement that he has signed without the express permission of the other party involved.

The signature of a person on a document constitutes agreement to all terms mentioned in the document, even if witnesses testify that the signer did not read or understand all of the terms mentioned therein. Therefore, before signing any document a person should carefully examine everything mentioned in it, or ask someone whom he trusts to explain to him what exactly it is that he is signing to.

The Halachos discussed above are stated explicitly in the Shulchan Oruch (Choshen Mishpat 69:1), in the Shach there, in the Nesivos in Biurim, and in the Teshuvos HaRashba (Siman 77).


(This answer assumes the digital EULA\Terms and Conditions is a valid halachic contract, and the checkbox is a valid halachic signature. Whether this is true is asked here and here.)

  • +1 as that's very relevant, but note that the question is about digital agreements rather than signatures on documents.
    – msh210
    May 7, 2014 at 22:50
  • @Shmuel I have had this arguement with a dayan here. I maintain otherwise. In secular law if one provides a standard contract he has to tell him if there is any small print. Jewish law is no different.
    – preferred
    May 7, 2014 at 22:55
  • @msh210 - That's a separate question.
    – Shmuel
    May 7, 2014 at 23:12
  • @preferred - I don't understand your point. All the print, large and small, is presented to you. This question is about whether you agree to it without reading it.
    – Shmuel
    May 7, 2014 at 23:15
  • 1
    @Shmuel A further objection to comparing this to a regular contract is that the parties do actually intend to abide by that contract. In an EULA, it could be that because so many people do not read the contract, the user is not expected to do so. Therefore, a normal contract is binding because both parties can at least reasonably expect the other to sign with 'daas makneh' (intent to relinquish rights), even if in actuality the signatory is unaware of the specific details. However, an EULA might not come with that same expectation. May 9, 2014 at 7:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .