Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

If there's one thing that's become clear over the years, it's that contracts between corporations and consumers don't really work.

The way you're supposed to prevent minors (or anyone really) from impersonating you when you sign a contract is by using a signature that is in theory difficult for the child to forge. Since signatures are actually a pretty flawed method of authentication, real companies will go further and get their deals notarized by a guy with a license whose sole job is to confirm that the client genuinely agreed to those terms (ie. a notary).

All of that is much more robust than a freakin checkmark, and it's a tragedy that the courts didn't stop companies when they were pushing this crap during the dawn of the Internet.

Well, truthfully, that's because you don't actually agree to the TOU by checking the checkmark. You agree to the TOU by continuing to use the product; the checkmark is just acknowledging that you're aware of this so you can't say that you used it unknowingly.

[McTraveller]

Which is stupid, because everyone knows that the TOU is checked "under duress", nobody reads it, and only checks the box or signs or whatever because the checkbox is in the way of using the thing.  TOUs are also usually very asymmetrical; the things the end user gives up to use a thing they already paid ("gave consideration") for, are ridiculous.  Not to mention the "we can change the terms at any time" nonsense.

TOUs should be unenforceable based on that fact alone.

[Maximum Spin]

Which is stupid, because everyone knows that the TOU is checked "under duress", nobody reads it, and only checks the box or signs or whatever because the checkbox is in the way of using the thing.  TOUs are also usually very asymmetrical; the things the end user gives up to use a thing they already paid ("gave consideration") for, are ridiculous.  Not to mention the "we can change the terms at any time" nonsense.

TOUs should be unenforceable based on that fact alone.

Well, you're not really required to read it either. You're just required to know there is one. If you agree to a contract without reading it, that's usually considered to be on you.

As for it being a contract of adhesion, I mostly agree, but the fact that we have reached a point in society where everyone knows that they exist, and clicks through them without caring anyway, makes me feel like people just deserve it.

[Eric Blank]

I feel the opposite. We have no other choice, in nearly any aspect of our modern lives, than to blindly agree to every user agreement demanded regardless of how many rights were waiving, because otherwise we have no access to the services we need to survive in this world; we would be starving, homeless, and unemployed, and indeed unemployable. And we have no means by which to demand an amended TOU policy or other agreement; the only alternative is be denied the service, and every company you deal with demands you agree to theirs.

Terms of service agreements should never legally waive any rights, the whole system needs to be rewritten for the consumers/individual, broke, non-lawyers benefit and protection. Its not our fault we can't spend 20 hours a day reading updated TOU agreements to see where we're getting fucked next. It's all to make you exploitable and them invincible, and you can't do anything about it besides hide in a cave in the woods and hope the land owner never finds you.

[Truean]

Please do not quote
(Not legal advice and everyone knows it).

Yeah, contracts of adhesion are bad.

Traditional banning and enforcement are possible, but disfavored now. Force bad companies to pay legal fees of consumers suing them.
Hit the bad company in the wallet with that and damages. They stop the bad behavior. You would not have to deal with it.
The bad actors know they have the overwhelming advantage in defending themselves, but lost anyhow because they were wrong.
It used to allow justice to be funded and actually effective to curb wrongdoing. Special interests hated that....

Now, you got food delivered by Uber Eats so if they do anything do you at all, they can sidestep the justice system...? [sigh].

I'm just .... Yup.... There it is.... Just gonna go before it gets more depressing....

Please do not quote

[lemon10]

Well, you're not really required to read it either. You're just required to know there is one. If you agree to a contract without reading it, that's usually considered to be on you.

As for it being a contract of adhesion, I mostly agree, but the fact that we have reached a point in society where everyone knows that they exist, and clicks through them without caring anyway, makes me feel like people just deserve it.

Jesus Christ, are you actually running defense for EULA's now? Seriously?

[hector13]

I personally read it as a cynical commentary on the laissez-faire attitude most people have to the erosion of their rights as what has lead to EULA’s being common place, but you do you.

[Mech#4]

To me it's stupid that an EULA for a food delivery service also covers the ride-sharing service. These are two distinct things in my mind and one EULA shouldn't cover both of them. In that regard it is similar to the Disney case a few months ago where someone agreeing to the Disney+ EULA signed away their rights when they got injured in a Disney Theme Park.
It sounds like agreeing to the laws of a country if you interact with a company in any way.

My thoughts about American EULA agreements and signing away legal rights aside.

[King Zultan]

Seems like the put all kinds of weird shit in EULAs that they can use to get out of paying people if they get injured.

[Maximum Spin]

Seems like the put all kinds of weird shit in EULAs that they can use to get out of paying people if they get injured.

It's one particular weird thing - arbitration clauses. They always put in arbitration clauses which say that, if you ever have a dispute with the company, you have to settle it in arbitration rather than in court. It's generally presumed that arbitration will be more favorable to the company.

I personally read it as a cynical commentary on the laissez-faire attitude most people have to the erosion of their rights as what has lead to EULA’s being common place, but you do you.

Obviously. These services hadn't existed forever. Twenty years ago, everyone had a choice, but companies discovered that you could put basically anything in an EULA and people would still click through without reading. Society as a whole accepted this outcome. It reminds me that in ancient times they considered acedia to be a deadly sin.

ETA: While I'm at it.

To me it's stupid that an EULA for a food delivery service also covers the ride-sharing service. These are two distinct things in my mind and one EULA shouldn't cover both of them. In that regard it is similar to the Disney case a few months ago where someone agreeing to the Disney+ EULA signed away their rights when they got injured in a Disney Theme Park.
It sounds like agreeing to the laws of a country if you interact with a company in any way.

Well, it doesn't really. The EULA is usually "for all [whatever] services" because the company uses the same one, which is obviously their right to do, but agreeing to it for the purpose of food delivery doesn't inherently cover the ride-sharing service — it's just that you have to agree to it for the purposes of the ride-sharing service in order to use the ride-sharing service at all. You're still thinking about it from the perspective that checking the checkmark is accepting the contract; using the service or product is accepting the contract.
Basically, the theory that the EULA for the food delivery service covers the ride-sharing service was the family's argument, since they wanted to invalidate it based on a minor ticking the checkbox (which just isn't how it works.)

And you can tell that the family's lawyer is the type who likes to lie and twist words, since in the article, he makes a completely bullshit comment about the family's Constitutional right to a trial by jury being impaired — but of course, the Constitution only grants you the right to demand a trial by jury for yourself, against the government. Nobody has the right to demand to inflict a trial by jury on someone else.

[Mathel]

I think there should be a requirement for EULAs to be simple.

What I mean is, there should be a maximum character limit to them (let's say 5000), and they should have to be in plain speech, so that people could understand them.
This is to prevent companies from making 200 page long EULAs filled with lawyereese, which nobody will read through anyway.

And if you use EULA to link to another article, that article also counts into the character limit. (No linking 500 page ToS)


If you want a longer contract, you will have to get the person to come in person and make a contract on paper. This is likely to annoy your on-line customers, and will let them ask you what various terms in the contract mean.

[Mech#4]

That would help matters a lot. I know the legal writing is for legal reasons but it's really not something the average person, myself included, can understand in the way it's meant to be. Nor should people be expected to read multiple pages of it to avoid "Gotcha!" situations.

[Truean]

Please do not quote
Not legal advice or representation; obviously.

Issue isn't legal writing. That's a tool. Issue is bad intention: tricking people, taking away rights.... Legal writing is a hammer: it can build a home or crack your skull. New conservative ideology twisted everything while accusing others of twisting things (a la Trump). Convicted felon as of  now, but he still says everyone else did everything wrong / denies wanting Hillary locked up. It's a massive word twister, while blaming others. Same thing with businesses forcing arbitration.

Didn't used to be like this, but power shifted to big business. Legal industry used to be healthy where you could often affordably challenge a major wrong and win, (lots of pro bono too). The Founders wanted a neutral Judge, Jury, evidence, and logic. Used to do cases on contingency; no pay unless victorious. Could take 5 cases and break even if 1 or 2 won, losing money otherwise. Never took bad cases; that was a conservative lie for "tort reform." Rich people wanted to get away with anything; tort reform and forced arbitration let them. Now, the court filing fees shot up, along with barriers for your  average person's lawyer. Now, the big businesses have hand picked the arbitration members/arbiters. Judges are elected or appointed by the elected. They stacked the deck and force you to play their rigged game. Do not be fooled by the idea that it can be "simplified." Big businesses know better and they have their legal department while trying to convince you that you will be OK with no lawyer, so they can screw you.

Society never understood ToS contracts of adhesion while trying to adapt to tech. Contracts should require offer, acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration, and agreement. These aren't that, but big business forced it to be considered that with bad intention.

Representative legislation and a jury could solve that BS.

Someone mentioned the Disney case about the subscription barring wrongful death. There are others. It shouldn't matter. You should be able to access the Justice system if you get screwed. Same with all the other systems (healthcare, etc.). Interesting how big business can pull this but you can't.

I'm afraid to ask what's next or where this ends: You ate the burger, so if you get sick from lead in the ketchup you can't sue? You wore the clothes so the fact that they sewed a concealed sharp metal blade into the fabric to cut you means nothing? You thought the broken glass in the ice cream was ice. God forbid the company make $90 Million a year instead of $91 Million. O god, you used the airport shuttle so now if the plane crashes from intentionally bad maintenance...

It's all quite depressing in a way and a fair shake is just going by the wayside when it doesn't have to and could be better again.
I just don't like people getting screwed over for no good reason.

Please do not quote

[martinuzz]

Which is why most EULAs have been ruled null and void and citizens are allowed to ignore them in the EU. (based on EU high court rulings)

[Frumple]

egg drop soup without kill yourself amounts of salt (and a good dash of msg) tastes... weird

it's not bad, and it's 100% still egg drop soup, but it definitely tastes very, very different without murderous amounts of sodium

Dummy easy to make, though. Simmer (chicken) stock, add seasoning, cornstarch slurry, beaten eggs. That's it. Takes like 10-15 minutes.