4 ms·

To expand on the reasons for this a bit: In most/all EU countries "the" law is divided into public and private law. Private law regulates interactions between p

by WJW 10y ago

To expand on the reasons for this a bit: In most/all EU countries "the" law is divided into public and private law. Private law regulates interactions between people (and "people-like" agents like some types of businesse). Public law regulates interactions between people and the state. Public law takes precedence over private agreements. As an example: you can make an private law agreement to let someone else take your house in exchange for an agreed upon amount of money (otherwise known as selling it). However, you can not make a private law agreement to sell yourself into slavery, because slavery is prohibited by public law and this public regulation overrides the right to sell things that belong to yourself. Similarly, it is legal to hire someone to take away stuff in your garage, but it is not legal to hire an assassin to take your life, since the public law on murder prohibits that transaction. In this specific case, it is not legal to sign a private law agreement with Lyft to waive your rights to resolution in court, since public law states that the parties have a right to resolution in court. The EU directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts is based on this legal principle and makes it more specific for consumer contracts.

d_theorist 10y ago
Ah, very nice. I like this explanation. Thanks. From a bit of random googling, it seems that this private/public law principle extends to common law countries, which would include the US. However, it appears that the US may have amended the public law to the effect that mandatory arbitration clauses are acceptable, whereas the EU has gone the other way and made their invalidity more explicit.
- user5994461 10y ago
  A contract cannot substitutes itself to the law, unless the law allows it. There are basically two sets of contracts laws in EU. One for company-to-company and one for company-to-consumers. The consumers laws are very protective for the consumers, because they are very vulnerable. For instance, for most contracts you're handed a standard paper and you can't set any term. Thus the law forbids many many terms, and an illegal term cannot be enforced (either the term is voided OR the full contract is voided), like the one that allegedly give up your right to sue in front of a judge. The company-to-company contracts have a lot more room for negotiations. It's assumed that companies are negotiating and equal footing and that they should do their due diligence, no excuse.

by WJW 10y ago

d_theorist 10y ago

Ah, very nice. I like this explanation. Thanks. From a bit of random googling, it seems that this private/public law principle extends to common law countries, which would include the US. However, it appears that the US may have amended the public law to the effect that mandatory arbitration clauses are acceptable, whereas the EU has gone the other way and made their invalidity more explicit.

user5994461 10y ago
A contract cannot substitutes itself to the law, unless the law allows it. There are basically two sets of contracts laws in EU. One for company-to-company and one for company-to-consumers. The consumers laws are very protective for the consumers, because they are very vulnerable. For instance, for most contracts you're handed a standard paper and you can't set any term. Thus the law forbids many many terms, and an illegal term cannot be enforced (either the term is voided OR the full contract is voided), like the one that allegedly give up your right to sue in front of a judge. The company-to-company contracts have a lot more room for negotiations. It's assumed that companies are negotiating and equal footing and that they should do their due diligence, no excuse.