[kyle_t]

I think there are two things at play here.

1. People perceive they don't have a choice. For example when you visit the doctor and you have to sign 12 different form/contracts. Most people believe they either sign them or don't get treated.

2. Fear of not understanding. They think they wouldn't understand they legalese even if they tried, so why even bother? Personally I don't blame them. I've read contracts that were so wordy and had so much legalese in them you'd be convinced the lawyers wrote them that way just so everyone involved would need to hire as many lawyers as possible simply to understand the darn thing.

[CPLX]

I think a grossly underutilized tactic is learning the art of quickly reading and red-lining a contract. Meaning you go through line by line and cross out particularly nasty lines or clauses, or make quick edits, and then initial next to the changes. Then sign at the bottom and hand it back.

It's a habit I picked up from being in the music business for years, specifically being a concert promoter in my early 20's, where it's absolutely standard and normal practice to get a contract, red-line or change the stuff that doesn't apply or doesn't work for you, and return it. A good example would be striking language like "or for any other reason" at the end of a cancellation clause, or changing terms from perpetuity to 12 months, stuff like that.

I've since done it at doctor's offices, when renting or buying things, when signing a simple freelancing contract, and many other contexts. It's much less confrontational, after all you do sign it and hand it back to them, putting the onus on them to deal with it if it's a problem. I recommend this approach highly if you're the type to care.

[mahyarm]

Don't they usually contain things like. "Any changes to this standard contract have to be approved by the CEO of LargeCorp in writing, otherwise it is invalid". And every change has to be initialed by has to be initialed by both parties.

[jpatokal]

In that case the entire contract is invalid and neither party is bound by it.

[SilasX]

It's compounded with scummy tactics too. I've had one office email me a few forms to read and sign before the first office visit. Then, when I arrive two minutes before the appointment, they give me "just one more form", which is the arbitration agreement.

Why couldn't that have been sent with the others? To pressure people into signing.

Heck, I've even had medical doctors insist that I don't need to read something before signing it, just "get the gist" so they can go ahead with the appointment.

Edit2: I almost think the world is designed around prodding you not to read the contract, by any means necessary, and then holding you personally responsible for it. Like, imagine parking garages. Try asking for a contract there and see what happens. Let's say you don't like the terms. Then what? They make everyone back out of the single lane entry while glaring at you? What about negotiating the terms? And good luck expecting them not to assert rights they can't legally get via contract.

[mootothemax]

Thanks, those are some really interesting points!

I still find both explanations a bit strange, though. I mean, wouldn't you at least like to know whether there are any restrictions on operating a company from your rented accommodation, even if you perceive that you don't have any choice in it? Or even just where you stand in general?

I've also read some crazy legalese, but the thing is that I've read a heck of a lot more contracts that aren't legalese, and are very easy to understand.

That leaves me wondering whether it's the common introductory bits (e.g. that state "THE TENANT is John Smith") that make people give up early?

[dredmorbius]

I've walked out of businesses and/or offices on account of contract terms offered. There is that option.

[jxm]

Do you find that has a negative affect on your interactions with society? I can't imagine I could find a dentist or doctor that didn't have patient contractual obligations that I'd rather not agree to.

[ashark]

This is the problem, really. Don't like some terms in e.g. a mobile phone agreement? Take it or leave it. If you can't mobilize a mass of people to join you in rejecting it (you almost certainly can't, even if everyone hates the terms) your choice is to sign or go to another carrier (who will have the same problematic clauses in their contract). It'll hurt you more to be without a phone than it'll hurt the company not to take some special snowflake contract with you and get your tiny monthly payment in return. This is broadly true for loans, employment contracts, even doctors'/hospitals' contracts.

For the overwhelming majority of business interactions most individuals participate in, they're the weaker party by a large margin. The notion that any substantial portion of contracts and business agreements are being freely made between equals is a fiction. Degrees of coercion are everywhere. Consider: it's common to require candidates for low-wage jobs to take a piss test. If they say no, someone else will agree because they need the money. The business can afford to be at 98% capacity (or just overwork their employees) for another couple of days—an individual may not be able to afford an income of $0.00 for another couple of days. The job is worth more to the candidate than the (particular) candidate is to the employer. Agree, but insist your potential manager show you the results of a piss test, too? Laughed out of the room. Equals? Not even close.

Yadda yadda yadda this is the reason we have laws and don't just rely on contacts for everything. Also why unions exist (and why they must require membership, or else be largely ineffective) for employment issues specifically.

[dredmorbius]

In the phone market, increasingly, you can go non-contract with pay-as-you-go / prepaid SIMs.

What's starting to emerge is the concept of a WiFi-only device which is usable for voice / messaging when within network range, but not otherwise.

I agree with you generally vis-a-vis power relations -- that's really a highly underappreciated element of economics, though Smith's own second discussion of wealth begins: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power".

More generally, organizing politically to prohibit such measures is necessary.

Not merely "making them unlawful to use for discrimination", as there are plenty of other unrestricted grounds for discrimination. But prohibiting outright.

[dredmorbius]

It depends on the situation. But I'll generally raise the question, and if it's flat-out rejected, I'll keep shopping around.

I'll note that there's discussions that happen as well. WallMart's story on HN had a substantial discussion of their mandatory drug test requirement.