4 ms·

Any time the law sets things like "reasonable" it's a quagmire. For every utterance of "reasonable" in law you can be sure over $1B of laywer fees have been (o

by dijit 3y ago

Any time the law sets things like "reasonable" it's a quagmire. For every utterance of "reasonable" in law you can be sure over $1B of laywer fees have been (or will be) spent.

bell-cot 3y ago
True, to a degree. But let's imagine that (1) FedEx felt that profits were more desirable than legal expenses, and (2) FedEx had some power over the sending and contents of the notifications. Might FedEx decide to start following well-regarded standards for writing and sending legit-looking electronic notifications? And iterate from there, as an ongoing strategy?
Repulsion9513 3y ago
I think the answer here is "don't do things that are borderline (un)reasonable"
- calgoo 3y ago
  Could just shorten it to: “Don’t be a di*”
tialaramex 3y ago
You can spend as much as lawyer money as you want on arguing whatever nonsense you want, reasonableness is a common standard so sure, people will have spent lots of money pointlessly arguing about it but that's not a problem with reasonableness.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Sometimes the arguers win and set a new precedent... so it definitely creates a new problem with everyone who subsequently encounters the issue.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Sure, I'm certainly not going to pretend this is perfect, but it seems to be working basically fine and I don't see "reasonableness" - which actually avoids a lot of wrangling - as a problem. Compare Legal Tender against an ordinary Reasonableness test. Legal Tender says that I only have to accept payment of your debt in specific forms (the "Legal Tender") and I can refuse to accept other payment. So maybe our currency is Doodads, the Legal Tender law specifies that the 10 and 50 Doodad Coins shall be Legal Tender, and you owe me 15000 Doodads. You try to pay by card, I refuse. You try to write a cheque, I refuse. You try to pay with 150 of the 100 Doodad Coins, but again I refuse. Eventually I take you to court and... I win?! You did not pay your debt in the required Legal Tender. With Reasonableness the court might buy that it was OK to refuse to accept the card (maybe I don't have a merchant account) and maybe even the cheque too (but already by then I expect a judge to have a lot of questions about how I thought you would pay and I'd better have a really good answer) but the 100 Doodad Coins are clearly money, with Reasonableness as our standard it's obvious that I lose my case, there's no need to write a law saying "Yeah duh, the 100 Doodad Coin is money" because a reasonable person can see that.

by dijit 3y ago

Any time the law sets things like "reasonable" it's a quagmire. For every utterance of "reasonable" in law you can be sure over $1B of laywer fees have been (or will be) spent.

bell-cot 3y ago

True, to a degree. But let's imagine that (1) FedEx felt that profits were more desirable than legal expenses, and (2) FedEx had some power over the sending and contents of the notifications. Might FedEx decide to start following well-regarded standards for writing and sending legit-looking electronic notifications? And iterate from there, as an ongoing strategy?

Repulsion9513 3y ago

I think the answer here is "don't do things that are borderline (un)reasonable"

calgoo 3y ago
Could just shorten it to: “Don’t be a di*”

tialaramex 3y ago

You can spend as much as lawyer money as you want on arguing whatever nonsense you want, reasonableness is a common standard so sure, people will have spent lots of money pointlessly arguing about it but that's not a problem with reasonableness.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Sometimes the arguers win and set a new precedent... so it definitely creates a new problem with everyone who subsequently encounters the issue.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Sure, I'm certainly not going to pretend this is perfect, but it seems to be working basically fine and I don't see "reasonableness" - which actually avoids a lot of wrangling - as a problem. Compare Legal Tender against an ordinary Reasonableness test. Legal Tender says that I only have to accept payment of your debt in specific forms (the "Legal Tender") and I can refuse to accept other payment. So maybe our currency is Doodads, the Legal Tender law specifies that the 10 and 50 Doodad Coins shall be Legal Tender, and you owe me 15000 Doodads. You try to pay by card, I refuse. You try to write a cheque, I refuse. You try to pay with 150 of the 100 Doodad Coins, but again I refuse. Eventually I take you to court and... I win?! You did not pay your debt in the required Legal Tender. With Reasonableness the court might buy that it was OK to refuse to accept the card (maybe I don't have a merchant account) and maybe even the cheque too (but already by then I expect a judge to have a lot of questions about how I thought you would pay and I'd better have a really good answer) but the 100 Doodad Coins are clearly money, with Reasonableness as our standard it's obvious that I lose my case, there's no need to write a law saying "Yeah duh, the 100 Doodad Coin is money" because a reasonable person can see that.