Live data from Hacker News

Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

m.bbc.co.uk

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? A judge is actually ordering you to cough up? Can you share any more details?

No, we're fighting via our lawyer, but if it does end up in court, we will likely lose as contract law is pretty strong in the UK - and apparently this is a significant part of this recruiter's business model, so they're well practised at it and have test cases in which they've been victorious.

If you are bound by contracts that you received without requesting or signing, its time to leave the UK.

If that "business model" is allowed to proceed, what is to stop the contract trolls from suing everything into oblivion?

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better." Credit card charges that are pull-based are generally a bad thing, but not all pull-based payments are bad for consumers. For example, the Direct Debit scheme in the UK requires the consumer to be notified 5 working days before payment is taken, and the consumer has the right to get a refund from the bank without dispute; it is then the bank's jo…

I don't see how is that direct debit system better for consumers than what we have here in Portugal, where the consumer is the one initiating the debit authorization (using a code provided by the merchant).

The point is it gives you all the same powers with the added convenience of being able to passively approve payments. Active direct debit agreements can be viewed through banks' online banking services and you can cancel them with one click. I don't really see how your system is better for consumers.

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#153
post #47

I think this is an example of contracts being broken, often online but elsewhere too. You can't rent a hotel room without a credit card which helps hotels avoid you running off without paying for minibar peanuts or rock star damage to a room. OTOH, the fact that you can't update your iphone, rent a hotel room or do a lot of other things without agreeing to a "contract" or policy so long that it's impractical to read…

On the note of bullshit contracts... We are about to shell out ~£15k to a recruiter who sent us the CV of someone (completely cold, without the person's consent, or us having any relationship with them) we hired via another recruiter, but a year down the line are pressing a claim, as in their contract, receiving an email from them is deemed acceptance. This is apparently perfectly legal in the UK, and I'm considering…

My first reaction on reading this was, "What about the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act and similar legislation?" However, a few minutes of Googling and reading up on contract law on Wikipedia suggests to me that there's a very real problem here. It turns out that unsolicited goods and services legislation only applies to consumers: for B2B it's somewhat more complicated.

For a contract to be valid, four things are necessary: an offer, an acceptance, a consideration, and an intention to create a legally binding relationship.

You can't accept a contract just by reading it: you have to take some action indicating your acceptance. Normally this would be by communicating it, but in the case of unilateral contracts (e.g. software licence agreements), it can be by some other action such as clicking an "I agree" button.

I'd guess that what is going on here is that the recruiter is trying to argue that you've indicated acceptance of their contract by hiring the guy. I'd guess that a paper trail to another agency would give your case some weight, but I'd guess that YMMV on that one.

This is why non-trivial companies have HR departments. The way they get round this one is by having clear disclaimers on their jobs/contact pages repudiating any liability for unsolicited CVs. Here are a couple of examples that I've come across - KPMG: http://www.kpmgcareers.co.uk/experienced-professionals/agenc... Cargill: http://www.cargill.com/careers/notice-staffing-agencies-plac...

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? A judge is actually ordering you to cough up? Can you share any more details?

No, we're fighting via our lawyer, but if it does end up in court, we will likely lose as contract law is pretty strong in the UK - and apparently this is a significant part of this recruiter's business model, so they're well practised at it and have test cases in which they've been victorious.

Why not send an email to them with a contract that nullifies the previous contract? I would love to hear a judge try to justify why one contract is enforceable for just receiving and email and another is not.

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#155
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote your earlier comment (because I'm not able to downvote, yet), but I certainly flagged this comment. What, exactly, do you think you're adding to the discussion at hand by vomiting out such tripe?

Thanks. I flagged yours too. I want the mods to pay attention and find a way to reduce the hostility of Hacker News. Several people I know in real life have told me that they perceive Hacker News comments as very hostile, so I know it's not just me. Nothing significant has been done to try to correct it.

We care about this a lot, pay close attention, and have been working hard on it.

> Nothing significant has been done to try to correct it.

That's a misperception, presumably because perceptions lag even after changes occur. But one needn't look far to see some: two inappropriate comments upthread have been killed by user flags and clearly marked as such.

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#156
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." didn't you understand?

This part apparently: "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." But forgive me, I am, unlike you, not the type of person who finds a story about a Hotel manager behaving badly particularly intellectually gratifying.

>But forgive me, I am, unlike you, not the type of person who finds a story about a Hotel manager behaving badly particularly intellectually gratifying.

Yeah, because it's just about a guy behaving badly, might as well been about a bar brawl. It's not a story that doesn't have connections to how some businesses perceive the internet, internet "mob" justice, antiquated laws, free speech and such, right?

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#158
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking of reddit. HN has submission guidelines.

Which amount to "whatever piques one's intellectual curiocity" and "whatever good hackers like". Apparently this piqued HN users intellectual curiosity and they like it. Besides an intelligent person can have an intelligent discussion about any topic, even Kim Kardassian. And the post is in final analysis about policy, freedom of speech, adapting to the digital age, etc.

While I wish your argument were correct, it's not. The flaw is in the inference voted for → was intellectually interested.

A model that appears to fit the data [1] is that multiple kinds of interest drive voting, and intellectual interest is not the most powerful one. This is the weakness of the story-voting mechanism. It is why, on a site that values intellectual interest, the vote signal must pass through other filters, like flagging and moderation.

1. Maybe we can test this someday.

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#159
post #71
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the guidelines: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

How does that make the submission appropriate?

It means this is the wrong place to moan about it.

Re: Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

#160
post #159
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that make the submission appropriate?

It means this is the wrong place to moan about it.

Would the proper response then not be to flag my comment rather than making a comment about it not adhering to the guidelines?
Post reply on HN