4 ms·

"I consent to your [legalese with weasel words that only specialist lawyers have any chance to understand the implications of]." See. No fraud.

by rapnie 3y ago

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Let me frame this in a story: Dave is a prostitute. He is hired by Sue via contract. In this contract, Dave agrees to have sex with Sue. Also in the contract is the agreement that Sue may introduce any sex toys that will not physically harm Dave. When they get together, Dave notices a camera pointed at them. Sue tells Dave that, "I only record sex with people who consent to my use of a camera." Later, Dave learns that Sue did in fact record the encounter. Sue's defense? The camera was a sex toy! It didn't physically harm you! This was all in the contract! Is Sue's defense valid? Of course not! Sue has committed fraud. --- We should hold corporations every bit as accountable as we would fictional prostitutes.
banannaise 3y ago
That's still fraud in most jurisdictions (although it's no longer provable unless there's a paper trail that says it's intentionally designed to deceive). However, even if fraud can't be proven, it may no longer be a valid contract. A contract is the mutual understanding of an agreement, not the words printed on a piece of paper. The paper can be used as evidence of mutual understanding, but it's not incontrovertible evidence of that. Many kinds of evidence can go the other way, such as unconscionability (terms that there's no way anyone would willingly agree to, thus suggesting coercion or subterfuge). Or, framed another way: consent, in both a moral sense and a legal one, requires awareness from both parties of what you are consenting to. Each party is, to some extent, responsible for using the resources at their disposal to ensure they understand the contract (e.g. a blind person must find someone to read them the contract), but intentionally undermining the process of mutual understanding is at best very good evidence against enforcement of the contract and at worst fraud.
trinsic2 3y ago
Its my understanding that contracts are only enforceable when there is a meeting of the minds. At lease on common law, and I think some of these people that run these companies should be dragged before a common law court to answer for these things.

"I consent to your [legalese with weasel words that only specialist lawyers have any chance to understand the implications of]." See. No fraud.

by rapnie 3y ago

"I consent to your [legalese with weasel words that only specialist lawyers have any chance to understand the implications of]." See. No fraud.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Let me frame this in a story: Dave is a prostitute. He is hired by Sue via contract. In this contract, Dave agrees to have sex with Sue. Also in the contract is the agreement that Sue may introduce any sex toys that will not physically harm Dave. When they get together, Dave notices a camera pointed at them. Sue tells Dave that, "I only record sex with people who consent to my use of a camera." Later, Dave learns that Sue did in fact record the encounter. Sue's defense? The camera was a sex toy! It didn't physically harm you! This was all in the contract! Is Sue's defense valid? Of course not! Sue has committed fraud. --- We should hold corporations every bit as accountable as we would fictional prostitutes.

banannaise 3y ago

That's still fraud in most jurisdictions (although it's no longer provable unless there's a paper trail that says it's intentionally designed to deceive). However, even if fraud can't be proven, it may no longer be a valid contract. A contract is the mutual understanding of an agreement, not the words printed on a piece of paper. The paper can be used as evidence of mutual understanding, but it's not incontrovertible evidence of that. Many kinds of evidence can go the other way, such as unconscionability (terms that there's no way anyone would willingly agree to, thus suggesting coercion or subterfuge). Or, framed another way: consent, in both a moral sense and a legal one, requires awareness from both parties of what you are consenting to. Each party is, to some extent, responsible for using the resources at their disposal to ensure they understand the contract (e.g. a blind person must find someone to read them the contract), but intentionally undermining the process of mutual understanding is at best very good evidence against enforcement of the contract and at worst fraud.

trinsic2 3y ago

Its my understanding that contracts are only enforceable when there is a meeting of the minds. At lease on common law, and I think some of these people that run these companies should be dragged before a common law court to answer for these things.