Right to Repair, but not Right to Use?!?

The Framework Terms of Sale has an interesting clause.

Use of the Product and Restrictions

Framework sells and ships Product(s) to Customers only. You will only use the Products for your own internal, personal use, and not on behalf of or for the benefit of any third party.

I primarily use my laptop for personal uses. However, I also volunteer with a non-profit and develop software for them in my spare time. Guess I can’t buy a Framework laptop and use it for that because doing so benefits a third party (the non-profit). I have no issue with saying personal use, but further defining that as not benefiting a third party is very draconian, and likely isn’t what was intended.

Reductio ad absurdem, I’m not even sure there’s any use that doesn’t provide benefit to a third party. If you browsing a website that has ads, do you need the financial statements of the company to determine that they aren’t making a profit from web ads? It seems like I also couldn’t answer any questions on the Framework forums using a Framework laptop, because that might benefit either Framework itself, or another third party like a personal user who asked the question.

Given the other clauses that restrict resale, and indemnifying Framework from what you use it for, what reason is there for the “not benefit a third party” clause?


That clause does not mean you cannot use it commercially – it means you have to be buying it for yourself. It’s a fairly standard term used to prevent value-added resellers.

Can you point to this? By my reading, this is the only clause that does this.

Wouldn’t it do that if it said the same thing, minus the benefit of any third party?

For example, from the Dell Consumer Terms of Sale

  1. Purchases may not be resold or exported. Your purchase is for your own use, not for resale, export, re-export or transfer. Your purchase is subject to and you are responsible for compliance with the export control and economic sanctions laws of the United States and other applicable jurisdictions (“Export Laws”). Your purchase may not be sold, leased, or transferred to restricted countries, restricted end users, or for restricted end uses according to the Export Laws.

This does limit to personal use, but doesn’t specify that can’t benefit third parties, which is what I think is the onerous part.

I probably used the word clause wrong (IANAL nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but it’s later in the same paragraph

You may not purchase Product(s) for the purpose of resale


It really does sound weird.

Ah, that makes more sense.
Is there a typo perhaps? I would think legal would be careful about typos, but it can still happen.

“You will only purchase the Products for your own internal, personal use, and not on behalf of or for the benefit of any third party.”

This would be clearer I think.


Everyone should note that, if you have the legal right to do something in your country, a company’s Terms do not remove your rights.

Some Terms of Use or Terms of Sale will say that you can not do this or do that. And they may very much try to make it sound like it’s not legal to do anything which they “prohibit” but that is not the case. If you have the legal right to do something in your country, their Terms mean nothing. Such as the First-sale doctrine. A product that you have purchased for your own use, you can later sell off once you no longer want it. A company’s Terms often try to make it sound like you can’t. The US Supreme Court recently stuck down a major attempt by a book publishing company to restrict first-sale rights.


But that may void any warranty.

1 Like

If so, I’ve broken the terms of sale A LOT (and am doing so right now!)

1 Like

On behalf of or to help.

Philosophy: I only interfere in other’s queries because it suits me, so no break of warranty.

I’m not helping you with the query just using you to answer interesting ones.

That you may find help in my response is down to you, “don’t lay that sh*t on me”


Just want to reiterate this. If anything this is Framework protecting their customers and should be applauded.

1 Like

Think there’s a gap between the conceptual intent, the wording, and expectation of the interpretation. For resale prevention, it should come under a different clause.

In legal land, there’s room for clarity improvement, because “What I wanted it to mean…” has little weight.