3 ms·
Many countries have laws that require certain types of contracts to have an obligatory right to withdraw within a certain time. In my country, all contracts tha
by hnarn 8y ago
Many countries have laws that require certain types of contracts to have an obligatory right to withdraw within a certain time. In my country, all contracts that have been entered "remotely" for example (over phone, over the Internet, etc.) have this, meaning that if you enter a contract over the phone, it can be nullified within a certain period for any reason.
So in these cases, whether you were "conned" or not is not a part of the legal language, which is probably very much a conscious move. It simply extends the customers right to withdraw from an agreement, keeping the reason for it legally irrelevant.
- microcolonel 8y agoThough there is a downside. I decided to start working when I was 16, and it was hard to keep business with no right to enforce my own liabilities in the contract.
- hnarn 8y agoI wasn't claiming that it's ideal, or something that should be applied to all contracts. I only answered the question of how this could be constructed in the legal sense. What types of contracts that are reasonable to include under a provision like this is an open debate.
- slavik81 8y agoThe right to be held to your side of the bargain is perhaps not immediately obvious as an important right, but there's a decent bit that has been written on the topic. For example: "Among the legal privileges of corporations, two that are mentioned in textbooks are the right to sue and the "right" to be sued. Who wants to be sued! But the right to be sued is the power to make a promise: to borrow money, to enter a contract, to do business with someone who might be damaged. If suit does arise, the "right" seems a liability in retrospect; beforehand it was a prerequisite to doing business." ~ Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict