4 ms·

The courts have established that certain contracts are simply invalid by their nature, and many instances of "signing away your right to sue" fall in this categ

by qq66 13y ago

The courts have established that certain contracts are simply invalid by their nature, and many instances of "signing away your right to sue" fall in this category. The real reason that companies have you do this is to reduce the chance that you'll sue, not reduce the effectiveness of such a lawsuit.

Sharlin 13y ago
The real WTF is that outright lying to the customer in such a manner is legal at all.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  The idea of a penalty for offering terms that a reasonable lawyer could have told you ahead of time were unenforceable appeals to me too. I think it could use a little more thought, but frankly I'm surprised it doesn't see broader discussion (if it does, I'm missing it).
  - qq66 13y ago
    In some situations (not sure which), having one part of a contract ruled unenforceable makes other parts unenforceable.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      I believe (could be wrong) that that is "true in the general case". However, in the actual general case, a contract includes a "severability clause" specifically providing that invalid provisions do not render other provisions invalid.
jeffdavis 13y ago
"The courts have established" Why not make it a crystal-clear law, so that an ordinary citizen can understand without having to dig through case law and see what applies to their situation.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why not make it a crystal-clear law Because its an application of existing laws, and creating a separate law for it would be much the same problem in law as excessively tight coupling is in software development. > so that an ordinary citizen can understand without having to dig through case law and see what applies to their situation. Because making the ordinary citizen have to dig through statute law isn't much different, and because unless all change to all other laws that might interact with it and have apparent conflicts that might need to be resolved by the courts stopped (which it wouldn't), the ordinary citizen would still need to dig through case law to know what it meant in practice.

by qq66 13y ago

Sharlin 13y ago

The real WTF is that outright lying to the customer in such a manner is legal at all.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
The idea of a penalty for offering terms that a reasonable lawyer could have told you ahead of time were unenforceable appeals to me too. I think it could use a little more thought, but frankly I'm surprised it doesn't see broader discussion (if it does, I'm missing it).
- qq66 13y ago
  In some situations (not sure which), having one part of a contract ruled unenforceable makes other parts unenforceable.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    I believe (could be wrong) that that is "true in the general case". However, in the actual general case, a contract includes a "severability clause" specifically providing that invalid provisions do not render other provisions invalid.

jeffdavis 13y ago

"The courts have established" Why not make it a crystal-clear law, so that an ordinary citizen can understand without having to dig through case law and see what applies to their situation.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Why not make it a crystal-clear law Because its an application of existing laws, and creating a separate law for it would be much the same problem in law as excessively tight coupling is in software development. > so that an ordinary citizen can understand without having to dig through case law and see what applies to their situation. Because making the ordinary citizen have to dig through statute law isn't much different, and because unless all change to all other laws that might interact with it and have apparent conflicts that might need to be resolved by the courts stopped (which it wouldn't), the ordinary citizen would still need to dig through case law to know what it meant in practice.