3 ms·

You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no

You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no obligation to educate. This is a contradiction. > but most people are going to blame you for not making yourself competent Shouldn't it go both ways? Businesses might be confident with your assertion and might rely on it to do business. But blame is the wrong attitude if you go in holding that opinion it's fraud. If you let someone sign a contract although you are sure they didn't read it, that's fraud. Simple as that. Why do I get weird looks when I actually start reading a contract I am about to sign?

DannyBee 9y ago
"You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no obligation to educate. This is a contradiction. " As i mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of states very explicitly require education as well! ". If you let someone sign a contract although you are sure they didn't read it, that's fraud.' Actually, it's not by any definition of fraud. You have not intentionally deceived anyone of anything. It would only be fraud if you intentionally told them the wrong thing, or deliberately tried to get them to not read it, or something more than "knowing this person has not educated themselves". We don't have a lot of thoughtcrimes. It may be a void contract, but it's definitely not fraud! " Why do I get weird looks when I actually start reading a contract I am about to sign?" I don't, so i'm not sure. In fact, in any real estate transaction i've ever been a part of, if i say "hey, do you mind if i take a few minutes to read this page more closely and ask you some questions about it", the answer i get is not "rolled eyes", it's "absolutely, that's what i'm here for"

DannyBee 9y ago

"You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no obligation to educate. This is a contradiction. " As i mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of states very explicitly require education as well! ". If you let someone sign a contract although you are sure they didn't read it, that's fraud.' Actually, it's not by any definition of fraud. You have not intentionally deceived anyone of anything. It would only be fraud if you intentionally told them the wrong thing, or deliberately tried to get them to not read it, or something more than "knowing this person has not educated themselves". We don't have a lot of thoughtcrimes. It may be a void contract, but it's definitely not fraud! " Why do I get weird looks when I actually start reading a contract I am about to sign?" I don't, so i'm not sure. In fact, in any real estate transaction i've ever been a part of, if i say "hey, do you mind if i take a few minutes to read this page more closely and ask you some questions about it", the answer i get is not "rolled eyes", it's "absolutely, that's what i'm here for"