3 ms·
"But your honor, it's obvious that we can't actually provide what we said we'd provide, so they should have assumed we would do less than that." No. It's not
by wccrawford 3y ago
"But your honor, it's obvious that we can't actually provide what we said we'd provide, so they should have assumed we would do less than that."
No. It's not on the customer to decide what a reasonable interpretation of the company's offering is. It's up to the business to inform the customer clearly.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> not on the customer to decide what a reasonable interpretation of the company's offering is. It's up to the business to inform the customer clearly. Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. This is why we have reasonableness standards: it's impractical to specify ex ante every term of a trade to infinite precision. Most people understand the intent of the term "unlimited" here, and given the fraction of accounts affected, this seems fine. (Also, until this announcement, it was unlimited. They're just discontinuing that. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited forever.)
- SoftTalker 3y agoWords mean things. Unlimited means without limit. If that isn't what you are offering, use another word.
- ZephyrBlu 3y agoI don't think you want to live in a world where "words mean things" in the way you're describing. It would make everyone's life extremely difficult.
- dingaling 3y agoI think that world is preferable to one in which the meaning of words is different to their definition.
- Dylan16807 3y agoNobody is suggesting that words be outside their definition. It's that the definitions are not super super narrow. And the other issue is that one person's interpretation of a word's most narrow definition is not going to be objectively right.
- sanderjd 3y agoThis is not actually how legal systems work, because they are not actually run by literalist computer nerds like us :)
- SoftTalker 3y agoI get it, but these companies could save themselves this kind of headache by just being more accurate about what they're selling. Like if I bought "unlimited" streaming vs. "Streaming limited to one screen at a time for one user" I'd be much happier about finding out that I can't watch one show in the bedroom and a different one in the living room than I would with my "unlimited" service.
- sanderjd 3y agoI don't disagree at all. I'm just saying that the legal system actually is equipped to deal with this kind of vagueness, which is generally a good thing.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoI would argue the exact opposite, that the legal system does operate based on literal interpretations of words, rather than the "spirit" of them. And that's why "legalese" is a thing. Every possible interpretation needs to be handled to prevent loopholes.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago> But your honor, it's obvious that we can't actually provide what we said we'd provide, so they should have assumed we would do less than that. That's a real defense and has precedent.