3 ms·
Common law nominally already has some principles built into it that can answer that in a reasonable way. Contracts that are super lopsided are already nominally
by jerf 2y ago
Common law nominally already has some principles built into it that can answer that in a reasonable way. Contracts that are super lopsided are already nominally invalid. Contracts that are incomprehensible and signed under duress are already nominally invalid.
As you may guess from my phrasing, I am well aware that in the present environment, believing that that meant much would be a childish level of naivety. But the principles can still be used to answer your questions in a reasonable way.
It really wouldn't be that hard to lay down some principles that privacy violations are an expense above and beyond, say, "parking my car". It is unreasonable for a person to think that the price of parking my car is $1.25 an hour and also arbitrary privacy violations and also you gave up your right to privacy from the government and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). $1.25/hour was already a fair price, give or take a couple of multiplicative factors. Taking a whole whackload of additional rights in the fine print under what can reasonably be called duress relative to the claims being made, beyond what a "reasonable person" would expect to be necessary to just complete the basic transaction, is not that hard to write some principles around. This is why judges are still human.
- gruez 2y ago>also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). It's worth mentioning that in that case, Disney didn't operate the restaurant that allegedly caused the wrongful death, but got included in the suit because they had a website listing for that restaurant. In that case I think it's pretty reasonable that if Disney can be put on the hook for having a listing for a restaurant that caused the wrongful death, that they can be let off the hook for having a waiver in their website T&C.
- gs17 2y ago> and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them If only they stopped there. After you've parked, you go in to some random activity and sign a liability waiver that, as written, says if the janitor's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate murders any member of the same species as you at some point in the future, whoever relevant will have to simply ignore the inconvenience because you once went into an escape room. Of course the extreme interpretation could never hold up in court, but it's absurd that I've even seen so many places that explicitly try to waive gross negligence in places where it's long been established to not be possible (or even places where it invalidates the entire clause!). These are sometimes justified as scaring people from lawsuits even if they don't provide and real protection, but why are we putting up with that?