4 ms·

Aren't you agreeing to all these nonsense terms when you do business with the entity? By giving the entity money to enter their gym or use their money to pay f

Aren't you agreeing to all these nonsense terms when you do business with the entity? By giving the entity money to enter their gym or use their money to pay for a house, aren't you saying, "I accept the terms you've set, even if they're absurd"? Why do you have a right to their goods if their terms aren't reasonable, and are you the judge of what's reasonable? Can you imagine a scenario where the "you" in question is someone who has a mental disorder or otherwise is incapable of accurately estimating value?

msandford 12y ago
> By giving the entity money to enter their gym or use their money to pay for a house, aren't you saying, "I accept the terms you've set, even if they're absurd"? Yes, that's precisely the point. At that point it's a contract playing out the way the contract was worded. In the case of the mortgage, the bank gets the keys and you don't get to keep living there. Why should you both give up the house and continue to make payments on the loss of value that the house incurred between the purchase and what the bank eventually was able to sell the house for? That's what a secured loan is; the bank is betting that even if you default the security for the loan has value in excess of the loan balance. In this case the bank lost that bet. There's no morality involved.