You need it so that they cannot proceed without checking the box.

You'll also need to email every member if you do change the TOS - and keep careful records.

Don't forget also that your TOS need to be "reasonable" - 80% of people DON'T read them, but that does not give you license to rip them off (not that I'm suggesting that was your plan!).

If the TOS are unreasonable, they'll be thrown out of court in seconds.

If it matters a lot (ie serious cash at stake), then get a lawyer to word them for you.

Thanks for the response,

Would a TOS like that where they just need to tick the box hold up in court though, as you said nobody really reads them and at any time I could just change anything I want in there (not that I would, just speaking hypethetically) and nobody would notice if I didn't tell them, and there's no proof that they were the Terms they accepted.

And yeah, with the being reasonable thing, obviously you couldn't have a site that deals with peoples money and include in the TOS somthing like "We reserve the right to take funds from your account at anytime for any reason".

Part of my site is basically free advertisement for freelance graphic designers / web designers, for example I can upload somthing to sell, which will include a description and such as well as payment details. But I have nothing to do with the transaction, I'm basically just showing them to each other. So I'll have somthing along the lines of "We are not responsible for the transactions between yourself and any other third party" So I'm not really involved with large sums of money being transacted and I assume the average price that these will be sold for would be around $20-$50 and maybe the rare occasion of somthing being $100-$200.

Thanks again :)

If it's good enough for the big boys, I don't see why it should be a problem for you, provided that

1. you verify email addresses
2. You send notice of changes (and I'd keep the old copy up in an archive folder, referenced from the current version)
3. You keep careful records of emails sent to registered members.

in view of the details you added, I'd also have a note on the page where members make a decision, saying something like

"please note all transactions are between you and we ain't involved see our [url]terms and conditions[/url]

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc

Thanks Quadrille,

All of the members on my site are sent a validation link to the email address they provided, which needs to be clicked before they use the services so that shouldn't be a problem.

Just wanted to make sure that's how the TOS works as I've had no previous experience with making one.

Thanks again :)

Recent court decisions are turning against the so-called "shrink wrap" or (more recently) "click wrap" licenses. Webmasters would be wise to carefully watch legal developments in this area.

[wired.com...]

The EULAs or terms-of-service agreements are long and legalistic, the deals are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the terms are often oppressive and one-sided. As a result, the legal hegemony of the EULA is cracking. This is a good development for consumers, who would otherwise be saddled by oppressive terms they have neither the legal sophistication to understand nor the bargaining power to avoid, and for the public interest, which suffers when customers are forced to waive rights that capitalist democracies rely on for innovation and accountability.

In Gatton v. T-Mobile (.pdf), the California Court of Appeal struck down a provision in the mobile phone company's EULA requiring consumers to go through arbitration to challenge termination fees or the practice of selling locked handsets that can't switch carriers with the customer. The court held that both the way customers entered into the EULA contract, and the arbitration terms of that contract, were unconscionable, and therefore the provision would not be enforced.

The reasons the court gave for holding the EULA procedurally unconscionable apply to most EULAs. Even though the arbitration term was fully disclosed to consumers, the contract was one of "adhesion": an agreement imposed and drafted by the party with superior bargaining strength, which gave the consumer only the opportunity to accept or reject the contract, not to freely negotiate it. As a result, the customer's unequal bargaining power results in an absence of meaningful choice. The fact that the customers could choose a different carrier may mitigate, but not cure, the procedural unconscionability.