Russell (zimzat) wrote,
Russell
zimzat

  • Mood:

Lopsided legal agreements and verbal "we won't do that" responses

Why are legal agreements frequently lopsided to heavily favor the one who is providing service or employment? The consumer and the individual often get easily shafted by these agreements. They make things apply to the consumer getting a service but provide very little in return beyond a service they stipulate they may or may not deliver upon and can't be held against them if they don't or it doesn't pan out to be what was originally promised (like so many ISP "speeds up to" disclaimers).

Personally I'm getting tired of being verbally assured an agreement doesn't mean what it says or that they'll never use it that way. If that's really the case then what's so hard about adding a written clause stipulating the usage?

One argument I've heard is that the person isn't authorized to make changes to the agreement. This was in the case of a recruiter for a large firm, so I could sort of see that, but then we go back to my original point that legal agreements often shaft the consumer with no recourse beyond "don't use their service". If their service happens to be the only good high-speed internet provider in the area and your line of work requires a high-speed internet connection then the only way "don't use their service" becomes feasible is if you change your career or move. For something that's becoming a staple like electricity or water that's hard to argue as a justified response.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 3 comments