6 ms·

> Can the legal system help? > I reached out to environmental attorneys. It quickly became an issue that my lease agreement included litigation and class actio

by ohazi 6y ago

> Can the legal system help? > I reached out to environmental attorneys. It quickly became an issue that my lease agreement included litigation and class action waivers. This bullshit needs to stop.

alexfromapex 6y ago
The legal system is stacked against the little guy. Would be even worse if there was an arbitration agreement.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Arbitration agreements have no effect on criminal law.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    What makes you think this is something that criminal law would address? The vast vast majority of these sorts of issues with corporations are handled via civil suits. That even includes wage theft, which is the largest category of theft several times over. Congress and state legislatures have by and large decided (so far) not to criminalize corporate wrongdoing unless it impacts shareholders.
syntaxing 6y ago
Seriously, I don’t see why this is legal. Sure, s/he should of read the lease carefully but sometimes landlord’s purposely stuff their lease agreements which makes it equivalent to online terms of service.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Read the reactions to many issues on this site. It tells the story. People believe in their own exceptionalism and have a strange perspective on freedom. That’s the toolbox that companies use to divide and conquer. It was particularly hilarious back a few years ago when major tech companies were colluding to suppress salaries and blacklist employees through “no poaching” agreements. The reaction to this sort of complaint is “just move somewhere else” or “that may be a problem for some ditz like you, but I am a 10x genius”.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I would guess that the real issue is that it would be difficult to prove that the leasing company was aware of the issues, or even that the environmental issues are the cause of this person’s problems. The topic of what has come to be known as “sick building syndrome” is a thorny legal issue because many times it’s not easy to prove that the building is causing the person’s problem. Most commonly, the issue is that the building is only triggering issues for a single person, while others in the same building are fine. It’s also difficult to separate out the psychosomatic complaints from people who believe their issues are from the building when they might actually be from something else. Doubting these patients publicly is very taboo, but medically it’s actually not uncommon for this to happen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ohazi 6y ago
  > Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I think it's specifically problematic that these terms are being put into all sorts of legal documents (lease agreements, employment agreements, etc.) as standard boilerplate. What you stated is correct, but it almost doesn't matter when the terms end up achieving the goals of the more powerful party, which is to discourage litigation, even in cases where it might be warranted. You shouldn't be allowed to pretend, in a legal document, that your counterparty isn't allowed to sue you for wrongdoing. That's basically fraud.
  - danuker 6y ago
    Absolutely. To me that is a red flag.
- juskrey 6y ago
  Exactly, no contract can override legislation which is applicable to contract jurisdiction. Environmental pollution and human poisoning are hardly allowed on consent basis.
newsclues 6y ago
German film Das Edukators had an interesting approach: kidnap the rich.
- tremon 6y ago
  Make them sign a non-extraction clause in their kidnap lease, sue them into the ground when they escape.
dathinab 6y ago
> litigation and class action waivers. How can that be legal? I mean a legal system which allows people to trick and force people into not being able to protect themself if they are scammed is completely broken IMHO.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  It isn't legal but some mumbo-jumbo that is meant to make people think they cannot sue.
- kevin_nisbet 6y ago
  > I mean a legal system which allows people to trick and force people into not being able to protect themself if they are scammed is completely broken IMHO. Was the writer actually tricked, as in did someone misrepresent the contents of the lease agreement? I didn't notice an allegation along those lines in the article. That could be fraud if the contract was miss-represented in some way, although some contracts say you are agreeing to only what is written and no verbal discussions are part of the agreement. It then becomes a fairly important legal concept that when you sign an agreement, that you understand and knowingly enter into the terms outlined into that agreement. As a way overly simplistic example, if I sell a widget for $100, some of that price might be to cover potential litigation and the like. However, if I find a customer who's willing to take the risk and agree to not sue me for some problem with the product, that agreement might be worth $75 to me. If all my competitors start selling competing widgets with a template that waives that right to litigate, I might have to follow along, because enough customers don't want to buy the $100 widgets and realize the price difference is a protection for them. Consumers could presumably band together and elect lawmakers that pass a minimum standard that no one can enter into a contract that doesn't allow disputes to be resolved via the courts, but then you don't get to complain when widgets get more expensive, or that there are other terms in the contract that aren't agreeable. If it wasn't a concept that when you enter into an agreement and sign those terms, that you actually understand and agree to those terms, I can't even predict what the chaos would look like.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    If you buy a widget without guarantees you expect it to at worst not work, but if it actively sabotages the rest of the site, steals user login cookies, runs a crypto miner then it's a different thing altogether. Similar a apartment might be faulty for all kind of things but if it is build on toxic wast, which on itself shouldn't have been legal without making sure the wast is contained, it is a different matter altogether. Especially given that whoever know that there was toxic wast was actively endangering the health and potential live of tenants. Just consider your widget instead of just not working to arbitrary start playing flash lights in a way extremely likely to cause serve epileptic seizures... EDIT: Or in other words, you might not guarantee the quality of a pice you sell, but this is a different matter altogether then trying to make people unable to sue you for things they rightfully can (like endangering health/live).
matheusmoreira 6y ago
Agreed. Why is it even possible to get people to waive away their rights via fine print? These clauses are a standard feature of most if not all contracts these days. They should be illegal.

by ohazi 6y ago

> Can the legal system help? > I reached out to environmental attorneys. It quickly became an issue that my lease agreement included litigation and class action waivers. This bullshit needs to stop.

alexfromapex 6y ago

The legal system is stacked against the little guy. Would be even worse if there was an arbitration agreement.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Arbitration agreements have no effect on criminal law.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  What makes you think this is something that criminal law would address? The vast vast majority of these sorts of issues with corporations are handled via civil suits. That even includes wage theft, which is the largest category of theft several times over. Congress and state legislatures have by and large decided (so far) not to criminalize corporate wrongdoing unless it impacts shareholders.

syntaxing 6y ago

Seriously, I don’t see why this is legal. Sure, s/he should of read the lease carefully but sometimes landlord’s purposely stuff their lease agreements which makes it equivalent to online terms of service.

Spooky23 6y ago
Read the reactions to many issues on this site. It tells the story. People believe in their own exceptionalism and have a strange perspective on freedom. That’s the toolbox that companies use to divide and conquer. It was particularly hilarious back a few years ago when major tech companies were colluding to suppress salaries and blacklist employees through “no poaching” agreements. The reaction to this sort of complaint is “just move somewhere else” or “that may be a problem for some ditz like you, but I am a 10x genius”.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I would guess that the real issue is that it would be difficult to prove that the leasing company was aware of the issues, or even that the environmental issues are the cause of this person’s problems. The topic of what has come to be known as “sick building syndrome” is a thorny legal issue because many times it’s not easy to prove that the building is causing the person’s problem. Most commonly, the issue is that the building is only triggering issues for a single person, while others in the same building are fine. It’s also difficult to separate out the psychosomatic complaints from people who believe their issues are from the building when they might actually be from something else. Doubting these patients publicly is very taboo, but medically it’s actually not uncommon for this to happen.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ohazi 6y ago
> Lease agreements can’t simply waive away criminal liability. You can’t commit crimes or fraud against someone just by getting them to sign a waiver. I think it's specifically problematic that these terms are being put into all sorts of legal documents (lease agreements, employment agreements, etc.) as standard boilerplate. What you stated is correct, but it almost doesn't matter when the terms end up achieving the goals of the more powerful party, which is to discourage litigation, even in cases where it might be warranted. You shouldn't be allowed to pretend, in a legal document, that your counterparty isn't allowed to sue you for wrongdoing. That's basically fraud.
- danuker 6y ago
  Absolutely. To me that is a red flag.
juskrey 6y ago
Exactly, no contract can override legislation which is applicable to contract jurisdiction. Environmental pollution and human poisoning are hardly allowed on consent basis.

newsclues 6y ago

German film Das Edukators had an interesting approach: kidnap the rich.

tremon 6y ago
Make them sign a non-extraction clause in their kidnap lease, sue them into the ground when they escape.

dathinab 6y ago

> litigation and class action waivers. How can that be legal? I mean a legal system which allows people to trick and force people into not being able to protect themself if they are scammed is completely broken IMHO.

IncRnd 6y ago
It isn't legal but some mumbo-jumbo that is meant to make people think they cannot sue.
kevin_nisbet 6y ago
> I mean a legal system which allows people to trick and force people into not being able to protect themself if they are scammed is completely broken IMHO. Was the writer actually tricked, as in did someone misrepresent the contents of the lease agreement? I didn't notice an allegation along those lines in the article. That could be fraud if the contract was miss-represented in some way, although some contracts say you are agreeing to only what is written and no verbal discussions are part of the agreement. It then becomes a fairly important legal concept that when you sign an agreement, that you understand and knowingly enter into the terms outlined into that agreement. As a way overly simplistic example, if I sell a widget for $100, some of that price might be to cover potential litigation and the like. However, if I find a customer who's willing to take the risk and agree to not sue me for some problem with the product, that agreement might be worth $75 to me. If all my competitors start selling competing widgets with a template that waives that right to litigate, I might have to follow along, because enough customers don't want to buy the $100 widgets and realize the price difference is a protection for them. Consumers could presumably band together and elect lawmakers that pass a minimum standard that no one can enter into a contract that doesn't allow disputes to be resolved via the courts, but then you don't get to complain when widgets get more expensive, or that there are other terms in the contract that aren't agreeable. If it wasn't a concept that when you enter into an agreement and sign those terms, that you actually understand and agree to those terms, I can't even predict what the chaos would look like.
- dathinab 6y ago
  If you buy a widget without guarantees you expect it to at worst not work, but if it actively sabotages the rest of the site, steals user login cookies, runs a crypto miner then it's a different thing altogether. Similar a apartment might be faulty for all kind of things but if it is build on toxic wast, which on itself shouldn't have been legal without making sure the wast is contained, it is a different matter altogether. Especially given that whoever know that there was toxic wast was actively endangering the health and potential live of tenants. Just consider your widget instead of just not working to arbitrary start playing flash lights in a way extremely likely to cause serve epileptic seizures... EDIT: Or in other words, you might not guarantee the quality of a pice you sell, but this is a different matter altogether then trying to make people unable to sue you for things they rightfully can (like endangering health/live).

matheusmoreira 6y ago

Agreed. Why is it even possible to get people to waive away their rights via fine print? These clauses are a standard feature of most if not all contracts these days. They should be illegal.