[ethin]

IMO any contract, waver, etc., shouldn't be legally enforceable unless the signatory has actually read it. It's always seemed to me to be one hell of a pathway of abuse (in a way) to just be able to bind someone to be legally required to do anything you want, for example, by just relying on them not reading the thing they signed.

[dotancohen]

How to know if they actually read it? The signature implies that the contract has been read, understood, and accepted. I see no need for any alternative mechanism.

[buzer]

Well, if you presented them with list of 100 partners each with 20 page of privacy policies and they accept it within 10 seconds it should be tricky to argue that user actually read it all.

You could, for example, require that user answers very specific questions regarding 10 randomly selected partners and how exactly they can use the data ("is partner x allowed to build very detailed profile of you and target you with political adverts that are designed to manipulate you?").

[ApolloFortyNine]

If you did this people would only use the same half dozen sites and competitors would emerge.

We're borderline already there today when the cost of switching is typing a different url at the top of the screen. You add some mandatory 20 minute wait and you'll never see a new site again.

Google and Facebook would love it though.

[inigyou]

Plus sites that don't track you

[inigyou]

Well for instance if the other party is pressuring you to sign it then it can't be assumed that you had adequate time to read it and understand it

[dotancohen]

Contract law of every civilised land already has a process for considering and accounting for duress.

[inigyou]

It only accounts for "sign this or I'll kill you" not for "you have ten seconds to make a decision or the dream vacation goes to the next person"

[crote]

Some countries already have provisions for this.

For example, in The Netherlands there is a legally mandated three-day period after signing the contract for purchasing a home during which the buyer can still call off the deal.

The reasoning for this is that it is a seller's market, with demand far outnumbering supply. In practice it is very common these days to end up in a bidding war, and even forego any kind of "sale is void if home inspection turns up issues" clause. Want to think about it for a day or two before signing the biggest contract of your life? Too bad, another buyer is willing to sign today.

With the mandatory three-day waiting period you avoid buyers being locked into a contract they basically immediately regret. It gives them some time to do due diligence, reducing the risk of buying a complete lemon. The seller can ask for a similar clause to be inserted, but it is less common. After all, the only risk to the seller is getting slightly less money for it, and that's already mostly dealt with during the bidding process.

[tremon]

Your specific example is not intended to address buyer's remorse, but mortgage financing. After agreeing to a house sale, the buyer has three days to have their bank sign off on it. Yes, it's nice that it slightly alleviates pressure but the primary goal is to streamline house sales by making the financing details part of the finalization instead of the decision-making process.

[ethin]

Is that not what the courts are for? I imagine that if a court had to enforce a requirement like this, knowledge would generally be the best kind of proof. If you know what the contract said (or even it's terms in general) that would be enough.

The reason this isn't done is because corporations legal departments love writing 10-100 page contracts that absolutely nobody is going to read.