← Back to context

Comment by thaumasiotes

3 years ago

> And, as long as it doesn't breach any explicit laws, that condition is equally enforceable.

That isn't true; if the court concludes that no reasonable person would ever have knowingly agreed, it will find that the condition is unenforceable. It's a real standard, but I don't recall the relevant technical terms.

Obviously it's hard to meet that standard, but breaching an explicit law is very much not a requirement for unenforceability.

edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furn....

> when a party of little bargaining power, and hence little real choice, signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that his consent, or even an objective manifestation of his consent, was ever given to all the terms.

> In such a case the usual rule that the terms of the agreement are not to be questioned should be abandoned and the court should consider whether the terms of the contract are so unfair that enforcement should be withheld.

3 comments

thaumasiotes

Reply
ethbr0  3 years ago

Absolutely, but there are a few points that render this ineffective as a market mechanism in our current reality.

Point 1: You're probably yourselves vs a professional management company / large property owner. They obviously bring more resources and experience to a legal case than you do, in addition to simply having more time to engage in one.

Point 2: That's assuming you can even take the case to court, and didn't sign away any disputes into arbitration.

  • thaumasiotes  3 years ago

    > Point 2:

    I don't think that matters at all; if you have a term in your contract that a court will find unconscionable, an arbitrator is... shall we say, extremely likely to find the same thing.

    You're also free to haul the arbitrator into court if they make an egregious ruling. The fact that you were subject to binding arbitration and the arbitrator awarded your firstborn son to the company isn't going to be any more convincing to a judge than the alternative fact that your contract clearly states you're giving up your firstborn son to the company.