[netcan]

I disagree, if you tossed out the law books you would get a very different set of laws. Laws have a long tradition inherited over thousands of years. Contracts is one of those traditions. It's a good tradition. It's just taken a bad turn, being applied badly to the wrong kinds of things.

[moron4hire]

Good point, we would end up with different laws. Probably wholly worse laws. They'd certain pay lip service to concepts of liberty, but there'd be so many disclaimers and emergency provisos that it wouldn't mean anything.

[netcan]

I'm not as pessimistic as you. I don't think we need revolutions, just a moderately substantial adjustment to laws which take the flashing signs of absurdities as evidence that some premise is incorrect. In this case, the premise to adjust is (imo) the definition of contract or agreement that's all.

Rather than all the consumer protection approach which is hairy and ambiguous, just leave contract laws roughly where they are and applicable only to things which are to some degree of accuracy real agreements.

If a company is informing you of the rules of a game which you have no control over, lets not call that an agreement. Those rules can be subject to as many or as few consumer protection laws and regulators as we like but taking the stupid "but they agreed to pay £100 for posting a bad review" argument completely out of the picture.

If a hotel has a "no breakfast after 10am" policy. That's fine. House rules. No need for a contract.