3 ms·

I’m talking about the same thing as my first comment: ‘ Simply canceling mid contract isn’t a perfect remedy.’ Musk didn’t get to simply walk away from Twitter

by Retric 3y ago

I’m talking about the same thing as my first comment: ‘ Simply canceling mid contract isn’t a perfect remedy.’ Musk didn’t get to simply walk away from Twitter and lost a ton of money because he couldn’t renegotiate at that point. Contracts are binding, that’s the entire point. The interest bit is just one small part of that, but it’s illustrative of what gets done to compensate people for breaching a contract. Getting out legally is no big deal. Provide services until the end of the contract and then cancel the automatic renewal until the new terms are agreed upon is the least contentious option. But obviously no company wants to do this as many dead accounts are still automatically renewing. Thus lawsuits just like this one which companies often though not always lose.

crazygringo 3y ago
Maybe it's not a 100.00% perfect remedy, but it's generally considered good enough for small consumer things. For small consumer things, a prorated refund is seen as sufficiently acceptable. There's a big difference between a custom contract concerning billions of dollars involving teams of lawyers, and a annual consumer subscription a little over a hundred dollars. Quite simply, you can't show any substantial damages here. Nobody got harmed because a subscription option ceased to be available (the way shareholders would have been harmed if Twitter hadn't sold). Contract law doesn't treat all contracts equally importantly. Contracts aren't some ironclad unbreakable perfect guarantee. To go back to your example -- if you pay for a burger and fries, and then they discover they're out of fries, they don't have an obligation to deliver fries to your house tomorrow. They can just refund you. In this particular case, it's just not a big deal. Contracts get broken all the time, and the correct legal remedy is very often simply to ensure payment for services previously rendered and a refund for any other payment. Especially if there's no provision in the contract for fines or penalties. Remember, the Twitter deal had penalties built in to the contract. Amazon's obviously doesn't.
- Retric 3y ago
  > you can't show any substantial damages here. Nobody got harmed because a subscription option ceased to be available A few dollars for one person can add up quickly in aggregate. Again, they could have easily rolled this out as existing subscriptions expired. Further the existence of that option sets them up for meaningful penalties not simply reimbursement. > Contracts get broken all the time, and the correct legal remedy is very often simply to ensure payment for services previously rendered and a refund for any other payment. No. That’s often what one side offers as a low ball, but it is the legal system is who ultimately gets to decide on remedies when each side disagrees and it’s relatively rare for them to accept a partial refund of the remaining term. Amazon could have offered a nominal refund say 1$ or say an extra week extension for free. Anyone accepting that wouldn’t have been able to sue. But the existence of a partial refund policy on its own isn’t a remedy.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    There's no remedy needed because there's no damages because you can cancel and get a prorated refund. This isn't some major contract between two companies where there's a pre-negotiated penalty for breaking it. And with these kinds of small consumer transactions, nobody cares about interest.
    - Retric 3y ago
      You already acknowledged that their offer wasn’t enough to make people 100% whole. That’s by definition damages. > And with these kinds of small consumer transactions, nobody cares about interest. Amazon defiantly cares about the ~half billion per year in interest they collect collectively on these subscriptions. It’s backed into the annual discount they are willing to give. Balancing that benefit is the entire point of class action lawsuits. Where one person isn’t going to chase after 2$, a law firm is happy to chase after a slice of x00 million in damages. On the surface X people get some trivial payout, but society is vastly better off when companies can’t illegally nickel and dime people without any consequences.

by Retric 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

Maybe it's not a 100.00% perfect remedy, but it's generally considered good enough for small consumer things. For small consumer things, a prorated refund is seen as sufficiently acceptable. There's a big difference between a custom contract concerning billions of dollars involving teams of lawyers, and a annual consumer subscription a little over a hundred dollars. Quite simply, you can't show any substantial damages here. Nobody got harmed because a subscription option ceased to be available (the way shareholders would have been harmed if Twitter hadn't sold). Contract law doesn't treat all contracts equally importantly. Contracts aren't some ironclad unbreakable perfect guarantee. To go back to your example -- if you pay for a burger and fries, and then they discover they're out of fries, they don't have an obligation to deliver fries to your house tomorrow. They can just refund you. In this particular case, it's just not a big deal. Contracts get broken all the time, and the correct legal remedy is very often simply to ensure payment for services previously rendered and a refund for any other payment. Especially if there's no provision in the contract for fines or penalties. Remember, the Twitter deal had penalties built in to the contract. Amazon's obviously doesn't.

Retric 3y ago
> you can't show any substantial damages here. Nobody got harmed because a subscription option ceased to be available A few dollars for one person can add up quickly in aggregate. Again, they could have easily rolled this out as existing subscriptions expired. Further the existence of that option sets them up for meaningful penalties not simply reimbursement. > Contracts get broken all the time, and the correct legal remedy is very often simply to ensure payment for services previously rendered and a refund for any other payment. No. That’s often what one side offers as a low ball, but it is the legal system is who ultimately gets to decide on remedies when each side disagrees and it’s relatively rare for them to accept a partial refund of the remaining term. Amazon could have offered a nominal refund say 1$ or say an extra week extension for free. Anyone accepting that wouldn’t have been able to sue. But the existence of a partial refund policy on its own isn’t a remedy.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  There's no remedy needed because there's no damages because you can cancel and get a prorated refund. This isn't some major contract between two companies where there's a pre-negotiated penalty for breaking it. And with these kinds of small consumer transactions, nobody cares about interest.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You already acknowledged that their offer wasn’t enough to make people 100% whole. That’s by definition damages. > And with these kinds of small consumer transactions, nobody cares about interest. Amazon defiantly cares about the ~half billion per year in interest they collect collectively on these subscriptions. It’s backed into the annual discount they are willing to give. Balancing that benefit is the entire point of class action lawsuits. Where one person isn’t going to chase after 2$, a law firm is happy to chase after a slice of x00 million in damages. On the surface X people get some trivial payout, but society is vastly better off when companies can’t illegally nickel and dime people without any consequences.