Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

m.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

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

#51

Post by mnw21cam »

mpweiher wrote: post #48
Swizec wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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" 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 prev…

Actually, the clause usually says that if any particular clause in the contract is deemed invalid under law, then the rest of the clauses are not also automatically invalidated. Like you say, stating that the law takes priority over the contract is a redundant statement.

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

#52

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

pjc50 wrote: post #40
mistakoala wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these small hotel and B&B owners run their businesses as a hobby or retirement plan, which often doesn't quite pan out as the passive income scheme they were anticipating. They don't cope with the responsibilities that entail and can't compete with professional hoteliers who understand visitors slightly better, so they end up chasing the bottom end of the market (it's not unusual to see rooms offered for £10/…

Basil Fawlty was based on a real hotelier.

Not only was Basil Fawlty based on a real hotelier, but the hotel is now advertising itself as 'The inspiration for Fawlty Towers.'

I discovered this last week when I drove past it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Hotel,_Torquay

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

#53

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

toyg wrote: post #30
aikah wrote: post #9

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.

Justicable I belive is the term you can put whtever you like in a contract say only two weeks holiday in the UK.

Even if you sign it that part of the contract will be considdred null and void - and you can efectivly ignore it as teh UK's stutory rights take precedence.

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

#54

Post by kitbrennan »

reduce wrote: post #31
aikah wrote: post #9

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…

It is true for business contracts that the written word is considered the ultimate authority. The principle is called 'caveat emptor' which can be translated to 'buyer beware'; essentially a business that enters into a contract is expected to read that contract and consult legal advice.

That said, there is protection for consumer contracts. In the UK you have the Unfair Contract Terms Act that protects consumers against businesses attempting to discharge liability to negligence. Europe wide you have the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contract Regulations which prevents businesses from inserting onerous terms into contracts with consumers that are not 'individually negotiated' (eg. almost every contract that a consumer signs without using a lawyer).

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

#55

Post by johnwards »

paublyrne wrote: post #41
mimog wrote: post #20

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.

We're hiring btw ;)

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/careers/

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

#56

Post by mortov »

mpweiher wrote: post #48
Swizec wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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" 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 prev…

It's not really silly at all. It is there for two reasons.

(1) The law requries it to be stated in contracts [at least partially because of (2) below].

(2) Case law develops and can mean that something in a contract was previously enforceable but due to a test case or other development, it is no longer enforceable. Rather than companies having to watch every test case go through the courts and have lawyers rewrite contracts every few weeks just in case something needs updated, the catch-all allows for a more reasonable update cycle with rewrites only happening when there is a significant change to legislation or a number of cases has resulting in significant numbers of terms being invalidated. Pending the rewrite, the term makes it clear any updates to legal interpretation are honored.

In the EU there is also a choice of venue available to consumers so often the 'rules of country X' are not so readily enforceable for companies when they deal with consumers across EU borders. But that's a whole other complicated area.

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

#57

Post by binarymax »

netcan wrote: 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…

We live in a culture of liability and a culture of blame.

This is a symptom of legal liability running the governments and corporate world.

Change the culture and this problem will go away. Not an easy task.

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

#59

Post by ascorbic »

reduce wrote: post #43
toyg wrote: post #30

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.

The UK has similar rules. In this case it would be the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations that would apply, and which these clearly breach. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_pr...

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

#60

Post by DanBC »

mimog wrote: post #20

Why is this on hackernews?

I like to think it's "These small business owners got bad reviews. Here's their stupid way of dealing with it. Don't make the same mistake. What tips do you have for handling negative customer feedback or reviews?" -- which would be on topic. Unfortunately it ends up as being "wow, look at these idiots", so you are probanly right.
Post reply on HN