> This is a really strange thing, because to me a Swede, that means that whatever has been signed is not a contract at all and is, well, who knows what.
From my reading of the article the court agrees and said that's not valid, the actual ruling calls it `unconscionable`.
This sounds more like a scare people who don't know better from trying to enforce their rights, though I do think things like that should have some level of punishment.
I would also like to see some punishment for this. It is commonly used to bully the public who can't afford to call a lawyer for every little thing. I do think it should be illegal to knowingly include unenforceable clauses.
However it is not a trivial problem. Different jurisdictions have different rules about what sort of things are allowed in a contract. It probably wouldn't be good if they needed different contracts in different states. (Although maybe being required to list the differences explicitly in contracts that are clearly intended for cross-US use would be good). Additionally you won't want to void a contract just because any little detail is unenforceable.
I think the issue's with differing laws is more or less covered by "knowingly".
A small company that gets a contract drafted up and uses it in a neighbouring state or something wouldn't really qualify as doing it "knowingly" by any reasonable sense of the word.
A company the size of TicketMaster who has undoubtedly already had lawyers from or familiar with multiple regions review and modify their contracts can damn well be considered "knowingly" doing this. And if they _didn't_ have any other lawyers look at it, well, I think we could call that willful ignorance ("negligence") and apply it anyway.
This really isn't far off of established law, either (at least to my layman understanding). This is more or less how most criminal laws work already. You have to have some sort of intent to commit the crime. Intent can be fulfilled by negligence/etc as well. (You didn't _try_ and do this, but you didn't take the level of care that would be expected so it was a foreseeable outcome of your actions and we're taking that as good as intent.)
> A company the size of TicketMaster who has undoubtedly already had lawyers from or familiar with multiple regions review and modify their contracts can damn well be considered "knowingly" doing this.
Known or should have known is usually how this is phrased.
>This sounds more like a scare people who don't know better from trying to enforce their rights, though I do think things like that should have some level of punishment.
Similar to those "not responsible for x" signs you see at stores, when they are 100% legally responsible for x, or those "stay back x distance" signs on large trucks on the highway to try and avoid responsibility for their unsecured loads causing damages.
> or those "stay back x distance" signs on large trucks
This is also because the truck driver can’t see you, if you follow too closely. If you can’t see their mirrors, they don’t know you exist. Obviously that’s not safe.
Near me, the only trucks with this signage are hauling gravel. They frequently do a piss-poor job of covering the load and fling gravel that was left outside the bed during loading. I’ve had a fresh windshield chipped in under a month from these a-holes.
The punishment should be unwinding of all of those 'contracts', with Tiketmaster taking the loss if the tickets sold under these terms have already been used. They should be refunding every single person who bought a ticket from them with these terms and conditions, going all the way back to when such unconscionable terms were first introduced.
>From my reading of the article the court agrees and said that's not valid, the actual ruling calls it `unconscionable`.
Hope the same thing happens to Valve. You can't just change a contract right before a pending lawsuit to minimize damages. How is thst a contract at that point?
(note: I'm not part of the mass arbitration. I just want some justice in this world of loopholing billionaires)
From my reading of the article the court agrees and said that's not valid, the actual ruling calls it `unconscionable`.
This sounds more like a scare people who don't know better from trying to enforce their rights, though I do think things like that should have some level of punishment.