3 ms·
How about: any terms that can be reasonably expected to be surprising to -- and negatively affect -- a reasonable person under its scope are unenforceable witho
by dataflow 2y ago
How about: any terms that can be reasonably expected to be surprising to -- and negatively affect -- a reasonable person under its scope are unenforceable without the consent of all of those people.
(This is intended to be phrased on a way that includes e.g. cases where one party agrees to terms but another one is affects by it to their surprise, like your spouse when you buy a cell phone plan. So rephrase as needed.)
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThat’s what judges already do when deciding cases…?
- dataflow 2y agoI don't believe so?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoI’m pretty sure Judges consider whether such terms are within certain bounds of reason… they can be expected to annul terms such as ‘the customer has to offer their first born son as a sacrifice’ or ‘the customer has to pay a billion dollars in compensation’, etc...
- dataflow 2y agoThose are just unconscionable terms, not merely unexpected ones.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoAnd who would be the authority deciding on the definition of those two terms, if not judges? Clearly HN users cannot posses that authority without a fairly significant rank.
- dataflow 2y agoIt's not like I'm telling you to trust me on definitions. Just look up how it's been applied in the past. It's been a much, much higher bar historically.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoJudges aren’t automatons, they won’t self combust after deciding differently…