Justice Stevens reads the fine print
matthewbutterick.com
Justice Stevens reads the fine print
1–10 of 230 posts
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#2No post body was provided.
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#3> Suppose a passenger boards a cruise at a port in the United States. The boat then sails from one destination to another, often among multiple countries, through international waters. This raises two questions: what law applies to the boat and people on it, and where can they bring a legal claim if needed?
> For the boat itself, there is a long and boring answer pertaining to the maritime law of the country where the ship is flagged.
> But for the passengers, the answer is simple: the ticket is a contract, and these provisions are part of the contract terms. The choice of law provision determines which jurisdiction’s laws apply; the choice of forum provision determines where cases can be heard.
I don't see how this can be the answer. Suppose...
(1) My mother (an American national) books a ticket on an international cruise.
(2) A stowaway on the ship (a French national) murders her.
(3) I would like to make some sort of claim against the murderer.
The obvious action open to me under American law is a suit for wrongful death. But my question here is... why would the cruise ship's ticket terms govern the legal situation? My mother was a party to the contract. But the stowaway wasn't. The ticket terms would only appear to be relevant if I want to sue the cruise line. But I want to sue the murderer.
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#4> Suppose a passenger boards a cruise at a port in the United States. The boat then sails from one destination to another, often among multiple countries, through international waters. This raises two questions: what law applies to the boat and people on it, and where can they bring a legal claim if needed? > For the boat itself, there is a long and boring answer pertaining to the maritime law of the country wh…
If it was an either-or situation, odds are, you would be better off holding the cruise line responsible for failing to secure the boat and its passengers.
Even if you could sue the murderer, you wouldn't get as much money, and civil suits in the US don't send people to jail.
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#5Related to the opening of this article – it is interesting to see how one can get completely soured on certain products or experiences because, by virtue of their profession, they see the dirty underbelly of how things in that industry actually work.
Someone who has read cruise contracts in detail will never want to go on one. Cooks with experience in commercial kitchens never want to eat at a restaurant again. Someone who is familiar with standards of bridge inspections in most towns hesitates every time they drive over one. A computer security expert keeps their most valuable information under lock and key in a physical safe rather than online.
My conclusion ultimately is – everything is running on goodwill and duct tape, and ignorance is bliss.
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#6Justice Brandeis says a thing:
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/05/27/justice-louis-bra...
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#7> Suppose a passenger boards a cruise at a port in the United States. The boat then sails from one destination to another, often among multiple countries, through international waters. This raises two questions: what law applies to the boat and people on it, and where can they bring a legal claim if needed? > For the boat itself, there is a long and boring answer pertaining to the maritime law of the country wh…
The murderer is a stowaway and not bound by a contract they never signed. You would sue them under the applicable jurisdiction which, with maritime law, is incredibly complicated. You may not be able to sue the murderer at all depending on where the ship is registered.
The point of the case the article talks about is the enforceability of contracts between two parties with respect to choice of law/forum even when they’re almost contracts of adhesion. If you don’t sign the contract (or the other party doesn’t sign the contract) then it’s not relevant to your situation.
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#8Justice Brandeis says a thing: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/05/27/justice-louis-bra...
[flagged]
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#9> Suppose a passenger boards a cruise at a port in the United States. The boat then sails from one destination to another, often among multiple countries, through international waters. This raises two questions: what law applies to the boat and people on it, and where can they bring a legal claim if needed? > For the boat itself, there is a long and boring answer pertaining to the maritime law of the country wh…
They wouldn’t - the contract is between you and the cruise line only. The ticket contract’s forum/choice of law clause would have zero impact.
However, unless your stowaway murderer has assets that could be used to satisfy a judgment against them, any half decent attorney would also want to sue the cruise line as well for their culpability in allowing a stowaway on board (and the provision would apply).
Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print
#10Related to the opening of this article – it is interesting to see how one can get completely soured on certain products or experiences because, by virtue of their profession, they see the dirty underbelly of how things in that industry actually work. Someone who has read cruise contracts in detail will never want to go on one. Cooks with experience in commercial kitchens never want to eat at a restaurant again. Someo…
One of those hypotheses is easily testable: bridges can collapse and you will hear about it.
And yet.. it rarely happens? There was one in Italy and one in the US recently but, to a decent approximation, it’s a non-issue.
Maybe we should have more trust in people and their work. Maybe our bridges are fine, our food is kosher, but what’s rotting on the inside is society, eaten alive by cynicism and distrust.