41–50 of 167 posts
Why is this on hackernews?
How did the proprietors ever think this was going to end well? The "victims" have been given airtime on the national breakfast TV show. Even if it is legal it wont take long for internet justice to ensue. edit: actually, no need for internet justice, already there are 147 x 1 star reviews - the most recent stating "don't go there" and "lacking basic cleanliness"
I dont understand how this is even legal in Europe.No matter what the contract says.How can this be a legal clause? I dont get it.
It's not. This is unfair trading; the couple will eventually get their money back, and the hotel will be forced to strike down that clause. The fact that you write a contract (the policy) doesn't mean that contract is actually legal.
For an example of this, see non-compete clauses, for most types of employees in California.
I dont understand how this is even legal in Europe.No matter what the contract says.How can this be a legal clause? I dont get it.
In many parts of Europe (among the countries I've worked) the written word of contracts is worshiped as the ultimate authority. What's "the right thing to do" means nothing by comparison. You sign, you're bound by it, unless you put up a massive legal fight. Not only that, but signed contracts are expected to be used vastly more than in the US. It's a bit of a culture shock when you see the sharp difference in this r…
And really, both here and there, contracts are treated more like guidelines than actual rules. What you agree on with a handshake matters far more. Especially with contracts under 5 figures because enforcing them would be way too much hassle and in case anything goes wrong it's easier to just write them off as cost-of-doing-business and move on.
I dont understand how this is even legal in Europe.No matter what the contract says.How can this be a legal clause? I dont get it.
In many parts of Europe (among the countries I've worked) the written word of contracts is worshiped as the ultimate authority. What's "the right thing to do" means nothing by comparison. You sign, you're bound by it, unless you put up a massive legal fight. Not only that, but signed contracts are expected to be used vastly more than in the US. It's a bit of a culture shock when you see the sharp difference in this r…
B2B transactions do have more emphasis on following the rules of the contract, as two businesses are seen as being on a more "even playing field".
B2C transactions, however, rely heavily on consumer protection legislations (Sale of Goods Act, Supply of Goods and Services Act, Unfair Contract Terms Act), which recognise that most consumers do not read contract terms at all. In addition, there are a number of regulators and public bodies whose sole purpose is to provide free legal advice, and to fight cases on behalf of the consumer. Hell, there's a ton of morning television dedicated to hunting down dodgy builders and shaming them publicly.
My point is that contracts aren't as integral to everyday life as you assume, and most people will freely sign them in the knowledge that any bad terms are mostly unenforceable.
Why is this on hackernews?
Trip Advisor is a tech startup. The situation couldn't have occurred without a service like them. The ways businesses try to deal with the ramifications of online reviewing is probably interesting to anyone thinking about innovating in that space.
So a nearly 15 year old company with a billion dollar revenue still qualifies as a startup?
>> The situation couldn't have occurred without a service like them
Freedom of speech infractions have occurred for way longer than online services have existed.
So if someone tweets something stupid/political it should be posted on hackernews as well, simply because tweeting wasn't possible prior to twitter? Or what if someone reacts badly to something on tumblr, is that relevant for hn'ers as well in case they are trying to innovate in the micro-blogging space?
We need new laws. Not the vague hodgepodge we have now. Policies designed to not be read need to be considered completely invalid. This credit card charge should be treated like any merchant taking a card and then charging £100 more than expected. Fraud, theft, some mild form of racketeering, whatever that falls under.
I think the most common abuse of this sort is "out of contract" telecom charges where using 2X the contract number of minutes or data could result in over 10X (often over 100x) the cost of the original contract.
I'm not sure how exactly the laws need to work, but there is obvious stretching of the systems well past the point of ridiculous. An iphone privacy policy or a hotel "sign this" agreement is not free actors contracting freely.
Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better. If hotels need some sort of escrow, then it should be an escrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In many parts of Europe (among the countries I've worked) the written word of contracts is worshiped as the ultimate authority. What's "the right thing to do" means nothing by comparison. You sign, you're bound by it, unless you put up a massive legal fight. Not only that, but signed contracts are expected to be used vastly more than in the US. It's a bit of a culture shock when you see the sharp difference in this r…
Sidepoint: ALL contracts I've ever signed, both in Europe and in US, and across oceans, have a clause that says "If anything in this contract was missed or is in violation of the law, the law prevails. The contract is ruled by laws of X country" And really, both here and there, contracts are treated more like guidelines than actual rules. What you agree on with a handshake matters far more. Especially with contracts…
Yeah, I've also seen this in many contracts. It's silly. The law prevails whether you write it in the damn contract or not. That's why it's The Law. (You can also try the opposite test: "If anything in this contract is in violation of the law, this contract prevails over the law" --> yeah, right)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. This is unfair trading; the couple will eventually get their money back, and the hotel will be forced to strike down that clause. The fact that you write a contract (the policy) doesn't mean that contract is actually legal.
He's probably thinking of some similar situations in the US where certain types of clauses are automatically void. No court appearance needed, no waiting, no nothing. It's as if the clause never existed in the contract, no matter what people sign. For an example of this, see non-compete clauses, for most types of employees in California.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. This is unfair trading; the couple will eventually get their money back, and the hotel will be forced to strike down that clause. The fact that you write a contract (the policy) doesn't mean that contract is actually legal.
He's probably thinking of some similar situations in the US where certain types of clauses are automatically void. No court appearance needed, no waiting, no nothing. It's as if the clause never existed in the contract, no matter what people sign. For an example of this, see non-compete clauses, for most types of employees in California.