31–40 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. Also wouldn't hold up.
In the US, it's legal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-busine...
As I understand it, that's a very specific status that must be explicitly sought, and while it doesn't seem to be unusual under the US legal system, plenty of other places don't have a direct equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting... the arbitration clause includes a clause that might (if I recall correctly) be a response to a case where the person making the complaint ran out of money (Arbitration filing fees (and the arbitrators hourly fee) tend to be much more expensive than regular court). A higher court eventually ruled that requiring excessive fees to resolve a disagreement wasn't constitutio9nal (equal protection?), and the…
An interesting case of a company shooting itself in the foot via forced arbitration is Chipotle. They convinced a court to exclude employees who agreed to arbitration from a class action, so those employees each filed individually (helped by the class action lawyers), which has turned out to be vastly more expensive for Chipotle. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chipo...
I'm certainly not defending it, but these clauses can also be found in UK rental contracts made by estate agents. The clause will usually state that if you continue in the house after the term of the contract without renewing through the agency (and paying their exorbitant annual fees again) they will charge you a "finders fee" on the basis that you found the landlord through them originally. No idea on the legality…
Probably not any more. Letting agents, at least here in England, got so abusive with their terms and associated fees that it resulted in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which came into effect in June this year. It isn't quite a professional death sentence for any agency that even thinks about charging a tenant for anything ever, but it isn't far off.
[1]: https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Seems like a relationship built on deep mutual mistrust! I spoke to a recruiter once who wouldn't tell me the company she was hiring for, presumably to stop me going directly. But it was a ludicrous situation because of course I'm not going to agree to spend my time interviewing with an unknown company!
I'm wondering how that would even work. Do they blindfold you and take you to a mystery location!?
I'm certainly not defending it, but these clauses can also be found in UK rental contracts made by estate agents. The clause will usually state that if you continue in the house after the term of the contract without renewing through the agency (and paying their exorbitant annual fees again) they will charge you a "finders fee" on the basis that you found the landlord through them originally. No idea on the legality…
I never pursued it to see if it was actually legal - a strongly worded letter indicating that there _was_ a gap in the tenancy (a day, but it satisfied the strict wording of the contract), that the tenant was considering leaving due to the agency not fulfilling its contractual obligations, and that other properties would be removed at the end of their tenancy if this was the case, settled the issue without having to go that far.
Can they go bankrupt already?
Homejoy the house cleaning startup has a very similar business model to Wag. and as Homejoy failed because clients would directly hire the cleaners vs going through Homejoy; Wag will be destined to the same failure unless they use scare tactics to block clients from hiring contractors directly
Hopefully.
If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Base…
> If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee.
why do you need to do this:
> Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them.