3 ms·

There are a lot of reasons as to why this use of the fine print is unconscionable. 1. There was no consideration in exchange for signing the document. Disney

There are a lot of reasons as to why this use of the fine print is unconscionable. 1. There was no consideration in exchange for signing the document. Disney offered a gift and Piccolo effectively chose to return it at the end. 2. The period over which the contract applies would implicitly apply to the period of availability and use of the services. The following were mentioned in the case: 3. The terms of service were not directly included in the contract 4. The contract was not explicitly signed 5. The terms of use related to the Disney Springs area conflict with and supersede the terms in the Disney+ contract However, I think the fine print has gotten out of hand generally. We need to have basically standard-form contracts for these things and explicit, aware, negotiated signature required for opting out of the standard terms. The problem is the scale. When a thing costs a nominal amount but requires a contract, and the negotiation of the contract is not worth the time or money for either seller or buyer, then it ought to be agreeable to both in the general case and not have any surprises. Reading through terms of service for just about anything these days makes you really wonder what you might be agreeing to. If you sign up for your smart dryer's service, are you losing the right to seek damages in court if your house burns down? The contract is unlikely to be more than a link with a button above it, or a tiny window in which you can scroll through hundreds of lines of text. What if there's an "agree to defend" clause in there and your smart dryer becomes part of a botnet that steals a bunch of money? Many of these uses would be thrown out for being unconscionable, but it just takes one judge to agree.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
>There are a lot of reasons as to why this use of the fine print is unconscionable. >However, I think the fine print has gotten out of hand generally. This is completely obvious. The problem I'm addressing here is more complicated. If we allow justified but the vague word of "reasonable" to override exact and written wording what does it say about the law itself? It says that laws and binding contracts are all easily stepped on and completely thrown into the trash by someones opinion of whats reasonable and unreasonable. That is the fundamental problem here. We don't want people to use fine print to enforce things unreasonably. But we also don't want people simply discard written rules just off some opinion of unreasonableness because this opinion could both in itself be absurd and deliberately deceptive. Take for instance that prenupts can be thrown into the trash if the bride signed it under distress. The bride can fake distress and completely invalidate something she signed. It's crazy.
- projektfu 2y ago
  Any contract can be invalidated on that grounds. If I sell my land with a gun to my head, that's a good reason to discard the bill of sale. If a party lies about their state of mind afterwards, that's perjury.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    False. Not any contract can be violated if signed under duress. This is not gun to your head level duress. You go to your fiance and ask her to sign a prenupt two hours before you guys tie the knot and threaten to end the marriage if she doesn’t sign… that counts as duress. Heard a story of a lady who delayed the signing of a prenuptial until such a situation occurred. She delayed and delayed until she would sign, while sobbing, an hour before they tie the knot in front of witnesses. The man ended the marriage right there because of this law.
    - projektfu 2y ago
      I dunno, if it didn't happen to you, perhaps you put too much credence into one side of a story. In the first story, you have someone who surprises the other person with a prenup moments before a hugely important event that has already involved considerable expense. In the second story, there has been no operation of law. Probably the dude, if he really exists, should have gotten the signed prenup before getting the wedding scheduled.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

>There are a lot of reasons as to why this use of the fine print is unconscionable. >However, I think the fine print has gotten out of hand generally. This is completely obvious. The problem I'm addressing here is more complicated. If we allow justified but the vague word of "reasonable" to override exact and written wording what does it say about the law itself? It says that laws and binding contracts are all easily stepped on and completely thrown into the trash by someones opinion of whats reasonable and unreasonable. That is the fundamental problem here. We don't want people to use fine print to enforce things unreasonably. But we also don't want people simply discard written rules just off some opinion of unreasonableness because this opinion could both in itself be absurd and deliberately deceptive. Take for instance that prenupts can be thrown into the trash if the bride signed it under distress. The bride can fake distress and completely invalidate something she signed. It's crazy.

projektfu 2y ago
Any contract can be invalidated on that grounds. If I sell my land with a gun to my head, that's a good reason to discard the bill of sale. If a party lies about their state of mind afterwards, that's perjury.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  False. Not any contract can be violated if signed under duress. This is not gun to your head level duress. You go to your fiance and ask her to sign a prenupt two hours before you guys tie the knot and threaten to end the marriage if she doesn’t sign… that counts as duress. Heard a story of a lady who delayed the signing of a prenuptial until such a situation occurred. She delayed and delayed until she would sign, while sobbing, an hour before they tie the knot in front of witnesses. The man ended the marriage right there because of this law.
  - projektfu 2y ago
    I dunno, if it didn't happen to you, perhaps you put too much credence into one side of a story. In the first story, you have someone who surprises the other person with a prenup moments before a hugely important event that has already involved considerable expense. In the second story, there has been no operation of law. Probably the dude, if he really exists, should have gotten the signed prenup before getting the wedding scheduled.