5 ms·

The contract was bad. It was very bad that they never revealed it until you got there. It was really bad that a Party tried to persuade you into signing the doc

The contract was bad. It was very bad that they never revealed it until you got there. It was really bad that a Party tried to persuade you into signing the document knowing you don't understand it (and they probably don't either). Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to submit an invoice for a refund of the registration fee (which I assume was pre-paid), reimbursement for your travel costs, and time paid for the amount wasted on reading their contract.

dunkelheit 11y ago
I don't think bickering over registration fee would be a reasonable thing to do. It just promotes the overall litigious atmosphere. The next thing we will see in such contracts is something like 'under no circumstances are participant's costs associated with event refundable, including but not limited to registration fees, travel costs, bla bla bla.' Or maybe it is already there. Much better make the whole thing public like the OP did.
- rgbrenner 11y ago
  I disagree. The way I see it, they stole $20 by crafting a completely one-sided contract designed to prevent reasonable people from participating in the event, and then foisted it upon participants at the last minute.
  - dunkelheit 11y ago
    Surely that was bad behavior on their part. The question is how to prevent this type of behavior in the future? I think the OP achieved more to this end by making bad behavior public than by mitigating his personal damage. Maybe it is false dichotomy but maybe not (the reason for these contracts is organizing entity trying to cover its ass).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- zeckalpha 11y ago
  For that to work, the contract would have to be agreed upon prior to participant's registration and travel to the event.
- krick 11y ago
  > just promotes the overall litigious atmosphere Fair enough. But this contract and the whole registration procedure itself promotes litigious atmosphere in the first place, so my opinion is it would be not only "reasonable" (it would probably be easier to forgive that $20 and travel costs) — it would be the right thing to do.
- click170 11y ago
  I don't think you understand why this is unacceptable, as evidenced by what you propose "they" will "do next". > The next thing we will see in such contracts is something like 'under no circumstances are participant's costs associated with event refundable, including but not limited to registration fees, travel costs, bla bla bla.' This misses the point entirely. Presenting a contract after the purchase is not acceptable, period. You do not have to agree to anything after the point of sale, and the vendor cannot make the use of your purchase conditional on any such agreement. If they expect any contract to be valid in court it must be presented before sale, full stop. For more information please see First Sale Doctrine.

dunkelheit 11y ago

I don't think bickering over registration fee would be a reasonable thing to do. It just promotes the overall litigious atmosphere. The next thing we will see in such contracts is something like 'under no circumstances are participant's costs associated with event refundable, including but not limited to registration fees, travel costs, bla bla bla.' Or maybe it is already there. Much better make the whole thing public like the OP did.

rgbrenner 11y ago
I disagree. The way I see it, they stole $20 by crafting a completely one-sided contract designed to prevent reasonable people from participating in the event, and then foisted it upon participants at the last minute.
- dunkelheit 11y ago
  Surely that was bad behavior on their part. The question is how to prevent this type of behavior in the future? I think the OP achieved more to this end by making bad behavior public than by mitigating his personal damage. Maybe it is false dichotomy but maybe not (the reason for these contracts is organizing entity trying to cover its ass).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
zeckalpha 11y ago
For that to work, the contract would have to be agreed upon prior to participant's registration and travel to the event.
krick 11y ago
> just promotes the overall litigious atmosphere Fair enough. But this contract and the whole registration procedure itself promotes litigious atmosphere in the first place, so my opinion is it would be not only "reasonable" (it would probably be easier to forgive that $20 and travel costs) — it would be the right thing to do.
click170 11y ago
I don't think you understand why this is unacceptable, as evidenced by what you propose "they" will "do next". > The next thing we will see in such contracts is something like 'under no circumstances are participant's costs associated with event refundable, including but not limited to registration fees, travel costs, bla bla bla.' This misses the point entirely. Presenting a contract after the purchase is not acceptable, period. You do not have to agree to anything after the point of sale, and the vendor cannot make the use of your purchase conditional on any such agreement. If they expect any contract to be valid in court it must be presented before sale, full stop. For more information please see First Sale Doctrine.