[lucb1e]

Serious question: how is this legal? I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me.

[the_watcher]

> I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right?

To answer your question - yes, you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving his right to sue you for shooting him. However, the contract would be unenforceable, and he could sue you (for both shooting him and potentially for the contract - IIRC, that depends on the state). One of the things that became abundantly clear in contract law is that you can put essentially anything into a contract, legally. It's enforcement of said contract that the legal system gets involved in.

[lucb1e]

> you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving [t]his right [...] However, the contract would be unenforceable

I understand I can write any nonsense and sign it, probably because of freedom of expression or something. My point was whether that contract would be enforceable. If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.

[Vraxx]

Not necessarily true. You have to challenge it to find out if it's enforceable in many scenarios, and it might act as a deterrent as well. Even a widely known unenforceable clause can deter someone who doesn't previously know that it is unenforceable from doing the action that the clause prohibits. So I can definitely see plenty of reasons to include these types of things in a contract. Plus, what does it cost them to include it in the contract?

[kevincox]

Yes, unenforceable clauses in a contract can be used as a game of chicken.

  Customer: You can't enforce that clause.
  Google:   Yes we can.
  Customer: Nuh uh!
  Google:   Want to go to court to find out?
  Customer: ...

[lucb1e]

Well if the clause is not to take them to court, and they want to take them to court, then yes they do want to go to court to find out. But I do see your point.

[the_watcher]

> If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.

This is simply false. Almost every contract signed in the US contains unenforceable language. The vast majority of people signing these contracts simply believe that if it's there, it's legal. For example, property law is wildly tenant friendly if you actually push it. The explicit reason for this is that landlords have an illusion of power and almost always include unenforceable provisions.

[EpicEng]

Well that would be a criminal act and the state would be pressing charges, not the victim. Bad analogy.

[lucb1e]

> "the state would be pressing charges, not the victim"

I figured, so I edited in (about 30 seconds later, not sure if you fell in that time gap): "Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me."

[EpicEng]

Yeah, didn't see that

[mmanfrin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...

5 to 4 decision, along the same lines as you'd assume.

[pdabbadabba]

Not exactly. This opinion only decided that an arbitration clause can disallow class-wide arbitration. The real answer to GP's question is the Federal Arbitration Act (which, by the way, was also the statutory basis for Concepcion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act