3 ms·

I'm not even sure it is legal in the UK - we have laws against "unfair contracts" [1], and there are also some statutory consumer protections that can't be waiv

I'm not even sure it is legal in the UK - we have laws against "unfair contracts" [1], and there are also some statutory consumer protections that can't be waived. Of course, this is about security breaches, and IANAL, but I'd say this doesn't stop all potential lawsuits. [1] http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/guidance http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfai...

ugh 15y ago
It’s complicated but I think many countries have pretty strong protections for consumers against unusual or unexpected clauses in contracts. I would be very surprised if this part of the terms would be enforceable, for example, in Germany.
- gavinballard 15y ago
  The title of this article is somewhat misleading. A clause that prevented any right of action whatsoever would most likely be illegal in many countries (including, I think, all EU countries, the US and Australia/NZ). However, "binding arbitration" clauses which require parties to submit to alternative dispute resolution procedures before any legal action is taken are actually quite common (perhaps more common in Aus/NZ, the UK and the EU than in the US?). They're a common feature of mobile phone contracts, internet contracts, et cetera. Edit: I see this question has been given excellent treatment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3001086 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3001086
  - tnorthcutt 15y ago
    Binding arbitration clauses are quite common in the US, as well.
sneak 15y ago
The only people qualified to determine whether a contract is fair or not are the parties that do or do not sign it.
- dhimes 15y ago
  I completely disagree. Being able to determine whether or not a contract is fair depends on domain knowledge. In the US anyway, being able to sign a contract is no indicator of domain knowledge. It is dependent on age and, if you represent another entity, your status as an agent for that entity.
  - sneak 15y ago
    Agreed. However, even with that domain knowledge, an outside party cannot determine for one of the parties whether or not they find it "fair" or not. This is not the role of government. It's common knowledge that contracts require domain knowledge, and if you proceed without it, it's akin to riding a motorcycle without a helmet, eating foods fried in trans fats, or driving a car without a seatbelt. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

ugh 15y ago

It’s complicated but I think many countries have pretty strong protections for consumers against unusual or unexpected clauses in contracts. I would be very surprised if this part of the terms would be enforceable, for example, in Germany.

gavinballard 15y ago
The title of this article is somewhat misleading. A clause that prevented any right of action whatsoever would most likely be illegal in many countries (including, I think, all EU countries, the US and Australia/NZ). However, "binding arbitration" clauses which require parties to submit to alternative dispute resolution procedures before any legal action is taken are actually quite common (perhaps more common in Aus/NZ, the UK and the EU than in the US?). They're a common feature of mobile phone contracts, internet contracts, et cetera. Edit: I see this question has been given excellent treatment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3001086 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3001086
- tnorthcutt 15y ago
  Binding arbitration clauses are quite common in the US, as well.

sneak 15y ago

The only people qualified to determine whether a contract is fair or not are the parties that do or do not sign it.

dhimes 15y ago
I completely disagree. Being able to determine whether or not a contract is fair depends on domain knowledge. In the US anyway, being able to sign a contract is no indicator of domain knowledge. It is dependent on age and, if you represent another entity, your status as an agent for that entity.
- sneak 15y ago
  Agreed. However, even with that domain knowledge, an outside party cannot determine for one of the parties whether or not they find it "fair" or not. This is not the role of government. It's common knowledge that contracts require domain knowledge, and if you proceed without it, it's akin to riding a motorcycle without a helmet, eating foods fried in trans fats, or driving a car without a seatbelt. Oh, wait. Nevermind.