Live data from Hacker News

Couple 'fined' £100 for leaving a bad review

m.bbc.co.uk

71–80 of 167 posts

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

#71
post #63
post #20

Why is this on hackernews?

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?

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

#72
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…

As others said, clauses like these are already considered null & void and the charge fraudulent, so I don't see this as a particularly good example of why laws must be changed.

With regards to very long contracts, and without meaning to defending all instances of them (since some are clearly just meant to obfuscate), how do you separate a contract "designed to not be read" from one that honestly tries to cover all edge cases and explain exactly what the terms are?

Some products - like the iPhone - are very complex. It's not easy to describe what information is gathered, with whom it is shared and how you can withdraw your consent, for each feature (Location, Siri, messaging, calls, etc) without a very long document. What do you propose they should do?

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

#74
post #29
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm going to appear to play the devil's advocate here, but bear with me and let's say it's not illegal for an agreement to contain such a clause. If it breaks no laws, then why is it illegal? Assuming you have signed an agreement for this knowingly (or at least they presented this agreement to you and it's fair to presume that you've read it before signing it). So what you would have to do is ref…

> Maybe you'll have to find another hotel That's refusing you service and extortion. The "another hotel" might be 100 miles away, in which case it also costs you money.

This happened in UK. In Europe 100 miles is a long way. There is another country 80 miles away from where this happened, and a different country 111 miles away.

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

#75
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…

"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).

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

#76
post #64
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…

The EU has the "Unfair Contract Terms Directive", which means contracts which are just presented to you as a consumer are not always valid. It lists things are "unfair" and hence not binding. e.g. enablying the seller to alter the terms. When deciding if a contract term is fair, it must be decided on the side of the consumer. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contra... http://eur-lex.europa.eu/leg…

falling on the side of consumers (as we mostly do here in the EU) isn't the right solution either. I don't think this is about a contract being fair. Some laws about legal agreements are ok, but they aren't the tool for this job. At least not in my opinion.

I think before you can determine if a contract is fair, you need to determine if a contract is even a contract. If a standard contract is "agreed" between some company (Apple, this hotel, etc) and all of their consumers and some unacceptably high number of those customers don't now the content of this contract, I think it should be considered what it is: nonsense on a piece of paper.

These contracts are so blatant that it doesn't even matter what the thresholds are or how they are determined. The way these "contracts" are set up to be agreed to by people who haven't read them is so flagrant, it's unmistakably contemptuous of the whole idea of an agreement.

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

#78
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…

I think contracts signed without some sort of comprehension test having been performed should be considered suspect. This would have the effect of preventing things from being hidden in the small print, and making for much shorter (and probably more standardized) contracts.

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

#79
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…

You can totally rent a hotel room without a credit card if you pay up front, they might require a deposit.

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

#80
I concur that something needs to be done about these consumer Terms-of-Service type contracts.

There's a contract system in place, and it may work fine for people who have the incentive and the resources to look over them (mergers and acquisition deals, house purchases), but a lot of the time the document is very long and written in legalese.

How many people are really going to hire a lawyer to read their Apple Store or World of Warcraft terms? Writing a hugely lengthy contract is simply a way to discourage you from reading it, and then pretending that you've agreed to whatever the terms are. I guess there's some help from the legal system - ridiculous clauses are thrown out - but that doesn't address the fact that you are discouraged from reading about relevant information.

I think someone must have written a post about how long it would take to just read the everyday ToS type docs that we're presented with. And South Park did an excellent episode about this (The Human CentiPad).

Post reply on HN