dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6281

Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL

Cheese to Dogfather

Premium Member

to Dogfather

Re: Nothing new

said by Dogfather:

said by ptrowski:

True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages.
Where are you getting that the agreement is a few thousand pages?

A 2,000 word service agreement isn't unusual in the slightest and has to be there, like arbitration, to combat the litany of bloodsucking ambulance chasers.

Blame the bloodsucking lawyers for these hoops, not Verizon. Hell, I have to wait 30 seconds to get to my Acura's navi screen because of blood sucking lawyers who would sue Acura if some dumbass drove into a lake.

Meanwhile she was told ahead of time that to get the deal she would have to go online and read the agreement.
"This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated."
Unreasonable
join:2007-10-15
Portland, OR

Unreasonable to CConverse

Member

to CConverse
Wow.

You really have NO knowledge of contracts.
I'm no lawyer, but we all have to deal with contracts.

The stuff in the TOS is the company's stated position.

It has zero force of law unless and until it's vetted through the courts. And it's a guaranteed fact that most clauses in these formula contracts would never ever be upheld by any court.

The arbitration clause is just a scare tactic to try to dissuade you from more formal legal remedies where the balance of power shifts to the weaker party.

Your best protection is to agree without ever reading the documents.

Since this is common practice, and the writers of these contracts know this, and take steps to promote keeping the other party in the dark, the odds of them ever being able to enforce any of it are remote.

Having the contract online further advances the consumer's position. Normally, both parties would have the opportunity to edit the contractual documents until a satisfactory 'meeting of the minds' is reached.

With an after the fact 'agreement' presented in a way to make negotiation impractical, I have no doubt that any court would toss it with a quickness.

If I were ever in a dispute, I would simply take the position that the agreement was entered into under duress, there was no meeting of the minds, and that it's null and void.

I would decline any arbitration attempt and proceed with civil action unless the other party were to make me whole.