211–220 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When exactly did it enter the public consciousness that drunk people are unable to give consent? I feel if this is true, there are many drunken hookups that become questionable. I'm in my mid-30s, and I feel this concept wasn't really a thing in my clubbing days.
You've never heard "alcohol is the most common date rape drug?"
Yes. There are two separate issues here, I think. 1. When corporations "negotiate" with consumers, this is an abuse of the legal system. Contract law was conceived for situations where both parties have at least some amount of negotiating power. Handing a consumer some long contract written by a set of well-paid lawyers, and asking them to sign it or walk away from any benefit from a product, is not the kind of contr…
One other comment for non-lawyers here: When two companies negotiate a contract, typically what happens is this. One team of lawyers drafts the contract. They send it to the other lawyers. Both business teams consult their lawyers, and the lawyers update the contract with their desired changes. Then the first company comments on desired changes and they negotiate. The result, after perhaps many rounds of negotiation,…
The basic law relating to online terms and conditions has been stable for some years now and should remain so. It certainly is not headed for a "reckoning." When private parties transact business in a free society, the law of contracts steps in to provide rules enabling them to do so in a well-defined and orderly manner. Contract law has some fundamental principles that anchor it and, beyond those, has a vast number…
No offense, the length of your comment reads like a Terms of Service Contract.
The basic law relating to online terms and conditions has been stable for some years now and should remain so. It certainly is not headed for a "reckoning." When private parties transact business in a free society, the law of contracts steps in to provide rules enabling them to do so in a well-defined and orderly manner. Contract law has some fundamental principles that anchor it and, beyond those, has a vast number…
Take phones for instance. You cannot live in modern society without a phone. You will not be able to get a phone, without agreeing to one of these long terms and conditions. They come from landline providers, they come from cell phone providers, they come packaged in the box in the cell phone from prepaid phone sellers.
How is saying, you're cut off from society or you can agree to a contract designed in a way that you have no reasonable chance of actually understanding it, something we want for society?
Yes. There are two separate issues here, I think. 1. When corporations "negotiate" with consumers, this is an abuse of the legal system. Contract law was conceived for situations where both parties have at least some amount of negotiating power. Handing a consumer some long contract written by a set of well-paid lawyers, and asking them to sign it or walk away from any benefit from a product, is not the kind of contr…
One other comment for non-lawyers here: When two companies negotiate a contract, typically what happens is this. One team of lawyers drafts the contract. They send it to the other lawyers. Both business teams consult their lawyers, and the lawyers update the contract with their desired changes. Then the first company comments on desired changes and they negotiate. The result, after perhaps many rounds of negotiation,…
The basic law relating to online terms and conditions has been stable for some years now and should remain so. It certainly is not headed for a "reckoning." When private parties transact business in a free society, the law of contracts steps in to provide rules enabling them to do so in a well-defined and orderly manner. Contract law has some fundamental principles that anchor it and, beyond those, has a vast number…
Plain English requirements for financial services (in the UK, not uncommon elsewhere) are a pretty decent example of why you're wrong. In those scenarios, the bar is moved up a notch to informed consent . Parties must know exactly what they stand to lose. A fair explanation of how your data could be leveraged against you should be a requirement because users don't understand this currently.
Even that strikes me as very unlikely, just examining my internal estimates how likely I’d be to read terms and conditions if they were in plain language. I don’t think the impenetrability of the language is the main barrier to reading T&Cs. The main barrier is that there is little on the line, and, moreover, I can already guess approximately what the T&Cs are going to say.
This is just a gut reaction. If you have some data to show that U.K. consumers are significantly more informed based on these plain language requirements, I’m happy to recant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a layman who, when presented with the commerce clause, replied that he had inferred the Dormant Clause [0] or Civil Rights Act [1] from it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 - "... principally its power to regulate interstate commerce"
I dunno. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Commerce among the states is Congress's domain, so state laws can't unduly interfere.
Whether or not you agree with that interpretation, it would take some willful ignorance to say that the plain text reading of regulating interstate commerce means you can regulate all commerce because you might have bought something from someone otherwise
The basic law relating to online terms and conditions has been stable for some years now and should remain so. It certainly is not headed for a "reckoning." When private parties transact business in a free society, the law of contracts steps in to provide rules enabling them to do so in a well-defined and orderly manner. Contract law has some fundamental principles that anchor it and, beyond those, has a vast number…
Its beyond even being a legal fiction in many situations. There is no option for most people when it comes to certain terms and conditions. Take phones for instance. You cannot live in modern society without a phone. You will not be able to get a phone, without agreeing to one of these long terms and conditions. They come from landline providers, they come from cell phone providers, they come packaged in the box in t…
True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…
> Law in general has multiplied It's no surprise reading the comments here and elsewhere these days. The media helps build a furor amongst people, and people believe there is no other choice but to use the heavy hand of the government to solve their issues. Many times it's done without alternatives attempted first with the proponents criticizing those against a law as against its intentions. We see it with the Patrio…
Government overreach is bad, and the government is frequently a bad actor itself, but at least if they are trying to cancel out corporations power we end up with both groups hobbling themselves a bit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its beyond even being a legal fiction in many situations. There is no option for most people when it comes to certain terms and conditions. Take phones for instance. You cannot live in modern society without a phone. You will not be able to get a phone, without agreeing to one of these long terms and conditions. They come from landline providers, they come from cell phone providers, they come packaged in the box in t…
For practical purposes, you can’t secure a dwelling without signing a long, complicated contract (be it a lease or a mortgage note). Yet dwelling is a necessity, even more so than a phone. And, in these contracts, so much more is on the line. According to your argument, you should not have to be bound by the terms of these agreements. You may indeed believe that, but I hope you can see how much of our society is base…
Just sayin’