> 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. Wa

> 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.