You have quite plainly demonstrated that you are a douche, but not why I must be a liar.
Here's the thing, I'm not getting personal when I call you a liar. I simply do not believe that you could possibly have read every document. You're just name calling when you call me a douche. I don't suppose you'll see the difference but that's your problem.
I can't think of any software I use that came with an EULA, although I usually read the license it comes with if it is new to me. For example, the GPL took me 3/4 of an hour to read 8 years ago.
Ah I see. So have you ever used anything that's licensed as GPL 3? What about a BSD license? Has any software you've used varied from the GPL? Are you fucking seriously telling me you read and digested the entire GPL in 3/4 of an hour, with all it's implications, when there are grey areas around it? (Why do you think GPL 3 was created?)
But the rest of your rant makes no sense.
Perhaps if you refuse to try to understand it.
Where did you get the idea I was for abolishing the protections that exist? How does suggesting that people be responsible for what they sign mean that I believe companies are free to write whatever conditions they like? What kind of logic are you using?
The same logic that hauls Google and T-Mobile up to answer for their inclusion of terms in the contract that are not reasonable and allow them to double dip and overcharge for breaking a contract. Those same protections that make it illegal and unenforceable to enslave your family in the fine print of a contract are the ones that come into play for this story. I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand.
Whatever was going through your mind, the fact is that in THIS case we are talking about a straight up contract - there was no adhesion or exploitation.
You don't think that charging more for a device under a break of contract than for a brand new device up front is exploitative? And you call me a douche? Get a grip!