3 ms·

As opposed to bank clients, who apparently have no reasonable expectations that a contract doesn't contain nasty traps hidden in dense legalese. I'd say if a c

by emn13 11y ago

As opposed to bank clients, who apparently have no reasonable expectations that a contract doesn't contain nasty traps hidden in dense legalese. I'd say if a contract is so long and convoluted that the drafting party can't be bothered to manually verify it's still valid when returned, they have no business drafting that contract in the first place. After all, it's hardly reasonable to assume the other party read it, apparently.

hugh4 11y ago
Not at all. Bank clients are also afforded similar protection. There's a concept known as an unconscionable contract, which is a contract that a reasonable person would not sign. Courts generally take a dim view of the enforceability of any contract which wasn't actively agreed to and understood by both parties. And that's why I don't worry, when I click that I have read and understood some agreement that I definitely haven't, that I might be agreeing to being part of a human centipede.
- jarek 11y ago
  Though it should be noted that in such a system the bigger/stronger/more active party still has an advantage as they are more likely to have experience and resources to go to courts. E.g., poor people are unlikely to take a payday lender to court
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Perhaps payday lenders are a more evocative target, but credit card companies are far worse offenders with respect to complicated, ever-changing contracts. Actually there have been some payday lenders where the only penalty for not making all required payments is not being able to get a new loan. You don't need a deceptive contract for that.
    - hugh4 11y ago
      But in that case there'd be so many people in the wronged party that some enterprising law firm would be very happy to set up a class action, if there were some point they thought they could win on as being genuinely unconscionable.

3 ms·

As opposed to bank clients, who apparently have no reasonable expectations that a contract doesn't contain nasty traps hidden in dense legalese. I'd say if a c

by emn13 11y ago

hugh4 11y ago
Not at all. Bank clients are also afforded similar protection. There's a concept known as an unconscionable contract, which is a contract that a reasonable person would not sign. Courts generally take a dim view of the enforceability of any contract which wasn't actively agreed to and understood by both parties. And that's why I don't worry, when I click that I have read and understood some agreement that I definitely haven't, that I might be agreeing to being part of a human centipede.
- jarek 11y ago
  Though it should be noted that in such a system the bigger/stronger/more active party still has an advantage as they are more likely to have experience and resources to go to courts. E.g., poor people are unlikely to take a payday lender to court
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Perhaps payday lenders are a more evocative target, but credit card companies are far worse offenders with respect to complicated, ever-changing contracts. Actually there have been some payday lenders where the only penalty for not making all required payments is not being able to get a new loan. You don't need a deceptive contract for that.
    - hugh4 11y ago
      But in that case there'd be so many people in the wronged party that some enterprising law firm would be very happy to set up a class action, if there were some point they thought they could win on as being genuinely unconscionable.