Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
This is also an example of EaglelandOsmosis. Historically, Anglo-American contract law was resistant to any attempt to get out of a contract; "hard law" was the rule of the day. However, over the course of the 20th century judges and legal scholars grew increasingly uncomfortable with the consequences of "hard law", and adopted all kinds of rules like unconscionability,[[labelnote:*]]The contract overwhelmingly favors the more powerful party[[/labelnote]] mistake,[[labelnote:*]]Misunderstanding/not knowing a fact about the world material to the contract. Can be bilateral (the parties both misunderstood each other or both misunderstood the world; a Briton sending his "pants" in exchange for an American's "suspenders" would be an example, as would the buyer and seller of a house in another city that, unbeknownst to them, was at that moment being destroyed by a hurricane) or unilateral (one party misunderstands, and the other should have known about the misunderstanding and cleared things up).[[/labelnote]] frustration of purpose,[[labelnote:*]]Whatever it was you wanted the contract for was taken away by outside forces. This doctrine came up when someone rented a room to watch [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfWindsor Edward VII's]] coronation procession, only to find that the coronation was delayed because the King was ill; he could still sit in the room but without a procession to watch, what's the point?[[/labelnote]] impossibility,[[labelnote:*]]ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin, more or less. The classic case is this: Seller ships Buyer 5,000 pairs of pants (either sense) from Bangladesh to Britain by container ship. While passing through the Red Sea, the ship gets attacked by [[UsefulNotes/{{Somalia}} Somali]] [[RuthlessModernPirates pirates]] and the container containing the pants falls to the bottom of the sea. Seller doesn't have to deliver the pants, or send another 5,000 pairs, because the shipment was destroyed and his performance was impossible. (It is a little more complicated with shipping, as that's where those shipping terms like "FOB" and "CIS" come from, but let's not get into that.)[[/labelnote]] and impracticability[[labelnote:*]]A California innovation, essentially meaning "we ''could'' do it, but something unforeseeable happened that makes it prohibitively expensive"[[/labelnote]] to soften its impact, to the point where this trope no longer really applies except where many if not most folks would say "Yeah, you should probably have read the fine print." Courts in non-common law jurisdictions are even more hostile to fine print, and will likely rule ''any'' fine print clauses in standard form contracts to be unenforceable. In countries based on Roman law, the civil code heavily restricts the types of clauses that can be put into these sorts of contracts. Recent changes to contract law in many places also enforce a defiance to this trope, at least in the exaggerated way it's been shown most often in comedic works, with a standardized font size for all text within the contract -- simply said, if it's so small that you need something more powerful than a magnifying glass to read it (and ''that'' can only be justified if your vision is poor), then it's unenforceable by default. Issues because the contract was written in a language the signer did not know are still struggled over (depending on such things like whether or not there is a record/witnesses of the exchange), but it is normally expected that if the signer at any point says before signing that he doesn't understands what the contract says the other party will either give a contract that can be understood or back off until the signer can find someone that can help him translate.
to:
This is also an example of EaglelandOsmosis. Historically, Anglo-American contract law was resistant to any attempt to get out of a contract; "hard law" was the rule of the day. However, over the course of the 20th century judges and legal scholars grew increasingly uncomfortable with the consequences of "hard law", and adopted all kinds of rules like unconscionability,[[labelnote:*]]The contract overwhelmingly favors the more powerful party[[/labelnote]] mistake,[[labelnote:*]]Misunderstanding/not knowing a fact about the world material to the contract. Can be bilateral (the parties both misunderstood each other or both misunderstood the world; a Briton sending his "pants" in exchange for an American's "suspenders" would be an example, as would the buyer and seller of a house in another city that, unbeknownst to them, was at that moment being destroyed by a hurricane) or unilateral (one party misunderstands, and the other should have known about the misunderstanding and cleared things up).[[/labelnote]] frustration of purpose,[[labelnote:*]]Whatever it was you wanted the contract for was taken away by outside forces. This doctrine came up when someone rented a room to watch [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfWindsor Edward VII's]] coronation procession, only to find that the coronation was delayed because the King was ill; he ill. Sure, the lessee could still sit in the room but without a procession to watch, what's the point?[[/labelnote]] impossibility,[[labelnote:*]]ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin, more or less. The classic case is this: Seller ships Buyer 5,000 pairs of pants (either sense) from Bangladesh to Britain by container ship. While passing through the Red Sea, the ship gets attacked by [[UsefulNotes/{{Somalia}} Somali]] [[RuthlessModernPirates pirates]] and the container containing the pants falls to the bottom of the sea. Seller doesn't have to deliver the pants, or send another 5,000 pairs, because the shipment was destroyed and his performance was impossible. (It is a little more complicated with shipping, as that's where those shipping terms like "FOB" and "CIS" come from, but let's not get into that.)[[/labelnote]] and impracticability[[labelnote:*]]A California innovation, essentially meaning "we ''could'' do it, but something unforeseeable happened that makes it prohibitively expensive"[[/labelnote]] to soften its impact, to the point where this trope no longer really applies except where many if not most folks would say "Yeah, you should probably have read the fine print." Courts in non-common law jurisdictions are even more hostile to fine print, and will likely rule ''any'' fine print clauses in standard form contracts to be unenforceable. In countries based on Roman law, the civil code heavily restricts the types of clauses that can be put into these sorts of contracts. Recent changes to contract law in many places also enforce a defiance to this trope, at least in the exaggerated way it's been shown most often in comedic works, with a standardized font size for all text within the contract -- simply said, if it's so small that you need something more powerful than a magnifying glass to read it (and ''that'' can only be justified if your vision is poor), then it's unenforceable by default. Issues because the contract was written in a language the signer did not know are still struggled over (depending on such things like whether or not there is a record/witnesses of the exchange), but it is normally expected that if the signer at any point says before signing that he doesn't understands what the contract says the other party will either give a contract that can be understood or back off until the signer can find someone that can help him translate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Tropers should rest (mostly) assured that civil code contract law has clauses against "obviously JustForFun/{{egregious}}" terms written into a contract. That said, there's plenty of non-egregious ways a contract can harm you -- not to mention what counts as legally "egregious" is only extremely outrageous things or something specifically mentioned in law. Judges don't like to overturn a contract unless it is clearly illegal. And the law very often does not prevent "unfair" contracts. After all, [[OffOnATechnicality unnecessary technicalities]] are bad for business, right?
Also rest assured that in [[UsefulNotes/TheCommonLaw common law]] jurisdictions (basically in any English-speaking country outside the heavily French-influenced Quebec and Louisiana), courts will exclude anything in the fine print that the signor shouldn't expect and are generally more favorable to signors than drafters when it comes to standard form contracts ("contracts of adhesion" in lawspeak -- or sometimes LeonineContract) under the doctrine of unconscionability. In fact, U.S. law prevents disclaimers from having any actual force in law. However, if it's not a standard form contract--i.e. you negotiated the contract out, personally or through a representative, with the other guy--expect this trope to be the case, since both parties should have been paying attention when it was written. Although this can also get complicated: "I didn't know that the contract required me to ship 10,000 suspenders" is not an excuse, but "I didn't realise that [[SeparatedByACommonLanguage my American business partner meant 'trousers' when the contract said 'pants']]"/"And I didn't realize that my British partner meant 'garters' when the contract said 'suspenders'" might be.
This is also an example of EaglelandOsmosis. Historically, Anglo-American contract law was resistant to any attempt to get out of a contract; "hard law" was the rule of the day. However, over the course of the 20th century judges and legal scholars grew increasingly uncomfortable with the consequences of "hard law", and adopted all kinds of rules like unconscionability,[[labelnote:*]]The contract overwhelmingly favors the more powerful party[[/labelnote]] mistake,[[labelnote:*]]Misunderstanding/not knowing a fact about the world material to the contract. Can be bilateral (the parties both misunderstood each other or both misunderstood the world; a Briton sending his "pants" in exchange for an American's "suspenders" would be an example, as would the buyer and seller of a house in another city that, unbeknownst to them, was at that moment being destroyed by a hurricane) or unilateral (one party misunderstands, and the other should have known about the misunderstanding and cleared things up).[[/labelnote]] frustration of purpose,[[labelnote:*]]Whatever it was you wanted the contract for was taken away by outside forces. This doctrine came up when someone rented a room to watch [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfWindsor Edward VII's]] coronation procession, only to find that the coronation was delayed because the King was ill; he could still sit in the room but without a procession to watch, what's the point?[[/labelnote]] impossibility,[[labelnote:*]]ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin, more or less. The classic case is this: Seller ships Buyer 5,000 pairs of pants (either sense) from Bangladesh to Britain by container ship. While passing through the Red Sea, the ship gets attacked by [[UsefulNotes/{{Somalia}} Somali]] [[RuthlessModernPirates pirates]] and the container containing the pants falls to the bottom of the sea. Seller doesn't have to deliver the pants, or send another 5,000 pairs, because the shipment was destroyed and his performance was impossible. (It is a little more complicated with shipping, as that's where those shipping terms like "FOB" and "CIS" come from, but let's not get into that.)[[/labelnote]] and impracticability[[labelnote:*]]A California innovation, essentially meaning "we ''could'' do it, but something unforeseeable happened that makes it prohibitively expensive"[[/labelnote]] to soften its impact, to the point where this trope no longer really applies except where many if not most folks would say "Yeah, you should probably have read the fine print." Courts in non-common law jurisdictions are even more hostile to fine print, and will likely rule ''any'' fine print clauses in standard form contracts to be unenforceable. In countries based on Roman law, the civil code heavily restricts the types of clauses that can be put into these sorts of contracts. Recent changes to contract law in many places also enforce a defiance to this trope, at least in the exaggerated way it's been shown most often in comedic works, with a standardized font size for all text within the contract -- simply said, if it's so small that you need something more powerful than a magnifying glass to read it (and ''that'' can only be justified if your vision is poor), then it's unenforceable by default. Issues because the contract was written in a language the signer did not know are still struggled over (depending on such things like whether or not there is a record/witnesses of the exchange), but it is normally expected that if the signer at any point says before signing that he doesn't understands what the contract says the other party will either give a contract that can be understood or back off until the signer can find someone that can help him translate.
In any case, one can contractually rescind any of one's legal rights except for bodily freedom and life. Joining the military, working for the government (FBI, CIA), or just agreeing to arbitration (giving up your right to sue in court) in a contract, are ways you can give up your rights.
Also rest assured that in [[UsefulNotes/TheCommonLaw common law]] jurisdictions (basically in any English-speaking country outside the heavily French-influenced Quebec and Louisiana), courts will exclude anything in the fine print that the signor shouldn't expect and are generally more favorable to signors than drafters when it comes to standard form contracts ("contracts of adhesion" in lawspeak -- or sometimes LeonineContract) under the doctrine of unconscionability. In fact, U.S. law prevents disclaimers from having any actual force in law. However, if it's not a standard form contract--i.e. you negotiated the contract out, personally or through a representative, with the other guy--expect this trope to be the case, since both parties should have been paying attention when it was written. Although this can also get complicated: "I didn't know that the contract required me to ship 10,000 suspenders" is not an excuse, but "I didn't realise that [[SeparatedByACommonLanguage my American business partner meant 'trousers' when the contract said 'pants']]"/"And I didn't realize that my British partner meant 'garters' when the contract said 'suspenders'" might be.
This is also an example of EaglelandOsmosis. Historically, Anglo-American contract law was resistant to any attempt to get out of a contract; "hard law" was the rule of the day. However, over the course of the 20th century judges and legal scholars grew increasingly uncomfortable with the consequences of "hard law", and adopted all kinds of rules like unconscionability,[[labelnote:*]]The contract overwhelmingly favors the more powerful party[[/labelnote]] mistake,[[labelnote:*]]Misunderstanding/not knowing a fact about the world material to the contract. Can be bilateral (the parties both misunderstood each other or both misunderstood the world; a Briton sending his "pants" in exchange for an American's "suspenders" would be an example, as would the buyer and seller of a house in another city that, unbeknownst to them, was at that moment being destroyed by a hurricane) or unilateral (one party misunderstands, and the other should have known about the misunderstanding and cleared things up).[[/labelnote]] frustration of purpose,[[labelnote:*]]Whatever it was you wanted the contract for was taken away by outside forces. This doctrine came up when someone rented a room to watch [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfWindsor Edward VII's]] coronation procession, only to find that the coronation was delayed because the King was ill; he could still sit in the room but without a procession to watch, what's the point?[[/labelnote]] impossibility,[[labelnote:*]]ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin, more or less. The classic case is this: Seller ships Buyer 5,000 pairs of pants (either sense) from Bangladesh to Britain by container ship. While passing through the Red Sea, the ship gets attacked by [[UsefulNotes/{{Somalia}} Somali]] [[RuthlessModernPirates pirates]] and the container containing the pants falls to the bottom of the sea. Seller doesn't have to deliver the pants, or send another 5,000 pairs, because the shipment was destroyed and his performance was impossible. (It is a little more complicated with shipping, as that's where those shipping terms like "FOB" and "CIS" come from, but let's not get into that.)[[/labelnote]] and impracticability[[labelnote:*]]A California innovation, essentially meaning "we ''could'' do it, but something unforeseeable happened that makes it prohibitively expensive"[[/labelnote]] to soften its impact, to the point where this trope no longer really applies except where many if not most folks would say "Yeah, you should probably have read the fine print." Courts in non-common law jurisdictions are even more hostile to fine print, and will likely rule ''any'' fine print clauses in standard form contracts to be unenforceable. In countries based on Roman law, the civil code heavily restricts the types of clauses that can be put into these sorts of contracts. Recent changes to contract law in many places also enforce a defiance to this trope, at least in the exaggerated way it's been shown most often in comedic works, with a standardized font size for all text within the contract -- simply said, if it's so small that you need something more powerful than a magnifying glass to read it (and ''that'' can only be justified if your vision is poor), then it's unenforceable by default. Issues because the contract was written in a language the signer did not know are still struggled over (depending on such things like whether or not there is a record/witnesses of the exchange), but it is normally expected that if the signer at any point says before signing that he doesn't understands what the contract says the other party will either give a contract that can be understood or back off until the signer can find someone that can help him translate.
In any case, one can contractually rescind any of one's legal rights except for bodily freedom and life. Joining the military, working for the government (FBI, CIA), or just agreeing to arbitration (giving up your right to sue in court) in a contract, are ways you can give up your rights.
