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.