4 ms·
How is business supposed to be conducted under those conditions?
by nandomrumber 11mo ago
How is business supposed to be conducted under those conditions?
- latexr 11mo agoFairly, respectfully, and without exploitation? Most business conducted in the world does not require someone to reject their lawful rights. For consumers in the EU, for example, the law even offers explicit protections by stating specifically that contract terms which are unfair have no legal binding. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
- philipallstar 11mo ago[flagged]
- latexr 11mo ago> "Exploitation" isn't an objective term. It means “the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work”. If you’re having someone reject their rights in a contract because that benefits you, that’s a form of exploitation. You’re making someone worse explicitly so you benefit. > It often just means "I don't like what I signed up for freely". From my first post: > If you can sign them away, you can be swindled of them. If you’re swindled, you’re not given them away freely.
- philipallstar 11mo ago> If you’re swindled, you’re not given them away freely. How do you define "swindle"?
- wffurr 11mo agoYour posts read like “it’s too hard to precisely define these things so why bother” this is what case law is for. To precisely define in the context of real cases what the precise contours of the law are. Clearly the EU has figured some of this out and might even have some of the specificity you are looking for.
- Forgeties79 11mo agoThis really reads like you’re playing rhetorical games. Do you legitimately not know what these terms mean or how they apply in the context of signing legal agreements? Are you unaware of their literal definitions? If you don’t then my apologies, we can break them down for you and link dictionary definitions (or Wikipedia if that’s your preference).
- philipallstar 11mo agoIf the statement is that any right that can be signed away can be swindled away, then I think something needs defining to make it a non-fatuous statement. I can sign away 4 years of my life to the military. Does that mean my life can be swindled away?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- falcor84 11mo agoThat's what we have courts and juries for. If a jury unanimously agrees that a typical person in a reasonable situation and with full understanding of the conditions would not be willing to sign such a contract because it would strongly go against their interest, then the person who did sign it has likely been swindled.
- tempfile 11mo agoIt is really not any harder to define than "freely". Presumably by "what I signed up for freely" you mean "what I signed up for without any coercion, threat of violence, etc". The people using "exploitation" here just mean that those conditions also include the implied threat of not having money to live. This is a real material condition which affects what people are prepared to agree to (even if they might be able to find a better offer by shopping around). It is not hard to understand, and I suspect you are not trying to understand it.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- isodev 11mo ago> I don't like what I signed up for freely I believe the post makes a good case that "freely" doesn't mean by choice at all. In other words, not what people consider freely.