|
|
|
|
|
|
by nicd
924 days ago
|
|
|
Imagine there were a set of a few common terms that businesses could select, each with an icon, a high-level explanation, and the detailed legal copy. I think there is a common set of those that would probably cover 80% of needs. The remaining 20% could be "extended", custom terms for this company. Such a system seems like it would make things much easier for consumers to understand, and also save legal fees for most companies. Maybe a good standard for a TOS-generator company to design and promote? |
|
|
The problem is they are contracts of adhesion that consumers don’t have a real interest or consideration in, other than the performance being conditioned upon your agreement, and which they do not have any ability to debate or modify or generally any recourse except to go to another business with an equally odious contract as a condition of performance.
They’re not incomprehensible, they’re unconscionable, and solutions tackling the former are missing the point.
The problem is that the same “lobbying” that produced the regulatory environment permitting such contracts to be forced upon consumers also precludes any real attempt to tackle the latter. Businesses would scream here if you forced them to follow standard consumer protections, and our system is oriented to favor their interests over consumers in nearly every possible scenario as well.
Another “continental” solution to this would simply be to outlaw contracts of adhesion or contracts in which the consumer does not receive a consideration (other than performance of the contract). If you don’t have a consideration it’s simply not a valid or consciencable contract, people don’t agree to give up money or rights voluntarily in return for nothing, therefore these contracts must facially be coercive.