4 ms·

I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, a

by waqf 11y ago

I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price. There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.

mikeash 11y ago
I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out: 1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts. 2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them. 3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one. 4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.) Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.
- emergentcypher 11y ago
  Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless when there are only three competitors in your market who all offer the exact same contract and have the freedom to tell you to fuck off if you don't want to sign it. It is all about bargaining power.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's where my step 4 comes in. They won't all offer the exact same contract they do now, because it will be too expensive for them, and since people are actually reading the contract then competing on clauses will actually be a way to get customers to switch over.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    > Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless No, and that's the whole point. If courts nullified contracts that even a reasonable person would "sign" without reading, phonebook contracts would carry enforcement risk, discouraging the practice.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Reading the contract isn't sufficient. You also need to be able to understand the legal language and its implications, and most people can't do that. If I read that arbitration clause, it wouldn't occur to me at all that it's a way for the other party to circumvent the court system. The real problem here is that companies tend to have their own legal counsel writing these documents, but customers don't have their own legal counsel reading them and advising them about potential pitfalls.
- wpietri 11y ago
  You can't force people to read them. You can only force them to agree that they've read them. Which is by and large what contracts say already. ("I have read the terms and conditions...") And even if you could force people to read them, you can't force them to understand them, which is really what's necessary for your plan to work. Those contracts are generally written by lawyers for other lawyers. To understand them you need the IQ of a lawyer and a fair bit of their education. Not being able to get an oil change until you've done a semester of contract law is something that nobody's going to be happy about.

by waqf 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out: 1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts. 2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them. 3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one. 4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.) Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.

emergentcypher 11y ago
Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless when there are only three competitors in your market who all offer the exact same contract and have the freedom to tell you to fuck off if you don't want to sign it. It is all about bargaining power.
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's where my step 4 comes in. They won't all offer the exact same contract they do now, because it will be too expensive for them, and since people are actually reading the contract then competing on clauses will actually be a way to get customers to switch over.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless No, and that's the whole point. If courts nullified contracts that even a reasonable person would "sign" without reading, phonebook contracts would carry enforcement risk, discouraging the practice.
enraged_camel 11y ago
Reading the contract isn't sufficient. You also need to be able to understand the legal language and its implications, and most people can't do that. If I read that arbitration clause, it wouldn't occur to me at all that it's a way for the other party to circumvent the court system. The real problem here is that companies tend to have their own legal counsel writing these documents, but customers don't have their own legal counsel reading them and advising them about potential pitfalls.
wpietri 11y ago
You can't force people to read them. You can only force them to agree that they've read them. Which is by and large what contracts say already. ("I have read the terms and conditions...") And even if you could force people to read them, you can't force them to understand them, which is really what's necessary for your plan to work. Those contracts are generally written by lawyers for other lawyers. To understand them you need the IQ of a lawyer and a fair bit of their education. Not being able to get an oil change until you've done a semester of contract law is something that nobody's going to be happy about.