4 ms·
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 pers
by 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 agoThough 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 agoPerhaps 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 agoBut 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.