4 ms·

It would mean fine prints need to be reasonable, and what does "reasonable" mean will be decided by a judge when needed.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Being reasonable is ill defined in itself. People can willy nilly interpret things how they want. This goes both for the writer of fine print and for the reader. There is merit in following wording to the exact meaning and intent. How do I get a user to explicitly agree to something that is unreasonable then? There are times where this is the case, for example sky diving, I need the user to consent that he might die.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  A sky diving user consenting to die from unforseen problems or inherent risk of the activity is reasonable. Consenting to die from gross incompetence or straight malice is unreasonable. We need a line between the two, otherwise the common law also becomes meaningless.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Jumping off a plane is highly unreasonable from my point of view. No one should be jumping off a plane for fun because the risk is too high. This is my POV against yours. Who's POV is correct? One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. But of course therein lies the problem. You can use this "wording" to uncover loopholes. To get rid of the loopholes you can allow "reasoning" to override these loopholes. But then it becomes your POV against mine. Of course my POV is right and you're obviously wrong. Would that be the more correct way to handle things? No.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      > One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. That doesn't touch the core issue: what if your exact wording goes against the law, the constitution or what the justice system is willing to allow ? That's part of what we call "reasonable". It's not just personal judgement, it can include for instance punishment for willingly killing someone, to go an extreme. You can't put in exact word in a contract "However way I die from the moment I jump off the plane until two hours after the I touch the ground, Company X should not be faulted in any way, shape or form". That can't be upheld if the instructor cuts your parachute with a knife during the descent, even if you meant it that way in the contract. It's still an homicide.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        No. We are not talking about your newly introduced topic here. What I described can still happen without violation of the law. What Disney is doing is completely within the law. This is a real issue I’m talking about here talked about among law experts. It’s not an issue I’m making up. Right now if you’re getting stabbed to death by a murderer and there’s a police man 3 meters away from you. That cop by law has no obligation to assist you. It is legally valid for him to watch you get stabbed to death and do nothing. This actual event happened a lawsuit was conducted and the cop was not guilty. This is legal because if such obligation were enforced there’s no way to word it without making a cop legally obligated to investigate every single crime. There’s just too many and in order for any police station to function they have to be able to choose cases at their own discretion.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Being reasonable is ill defined in itself. People can willy nilly interpret things how they want. This goes both for the writer of fine print and for the reader. There is merit in following wording to the exact meaning and intent. How do I get a user to explicitly agree to something that is unreasonable then? There are times where this is the case, for example sky diving, I need the user to consent that he might die.

makeitdouble 2y ago
A sky diving user consenting to die from unforseen problems or inherent risk of the activity is reasonable. Consenting to die from gross incompetence or straight malice is unreasonable. We need a line between the two, otherwise the common law also becomes meaningless.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Jumping off a plane is highly unreasonable from my point of view. No one should be jumping off a plane for fun because the risk is too high. This is my POV against yours. Who's POV is correct? One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. But of course therein lies the problem. You can use this "wording" to uncover loopholes. To get rid of the loopholes you can allow "reasoning" to override these loopholes. But then it becomes your POV against mine. Of course my POV is right and you're obviously wrong. Would that be the more correct way to handle things? No.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    > One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. That doesn't touch the core issue: what if your exact wording goes against the law, the constitution or what the justice system is willing to allow ? That's part of what we call "reasonable". It's not just personal judgement, it can include for instance punishment for willingly killing someone, to go an extreme. You can't put in exact word in a contract "However way I die from the moment I jump off the plane until two hours after the I touch the ground, Company X should not be faulted in any way, shape or form". That can't be upheld if the instructor cuts your parachute with a knife during the descent, even if you meant it that way in the contract. It's still an homicide.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      No. We are not talking about your newly introduced topic here. What I described can still happen without violation of the law. What Disney is doing is completely within the law. This is a real issue I’m talking about here talked about among law experts. It’s not an issue I’m making up. Right now if you’re getting stabbed to death by a murderer and there’s a police man 3 meters away from you. That cop by law has no obligation to assist you. It is legally valid for him to watch you get stabbed to death and do nothing. This actual event happened a lawsuit was conducted and the cop was not guilty. This is legal because if such obligation were enforced there’s no way to word it without making a cop legally obligated to investigate every single crime. There’s just too many and in order for any police station to function they have to be able to choose cases at their own discretion.