frauenfelder at January 27th, 2014 12:33 — #1
boundegar at January 27th, 2014 13:02 — #2
marc45 at January 27th, 2014 13:39 — #3
I love stories of people being resourceful! On the other hand, this is why we have lengthy EULAs and other complex legal documents that seem to accompany every aspect of life.
s2redux at January 27th, 2014 13:52 — #4
Meh, rookie stuff. Why, as a wee small child I ran a dodge with a birth certificate -- got free meals for 16 years!
brainspore at January 27th, 2014 17:07 — #5
Yeah, well, good luck convincing me to ever give up my table at this 24-hour All-You-Can-Eat buffet. Some people complain that the weeks without bathing have taken their toll, but I know they're just jealous that I found a loophole that will let me live out the rest of my life for just $11.95.
kimmo at January 27th, 2014 17:08 — #6
scottchilcote at January 27th, 2014 18:11 — #7
I don't doubt that some of the conditions in EULAs are there to limit the amount of damage that an intentionally abusive customer might cause, but the lengthy terms and conditions seem at least as eager to prevent legal liability for damages caused by the company imposing it.
I think that ginormous EULAs say more about the power that lawyers hold in our society. Companies have to hire them in order to protect themselves from the ones that they didn't hire.
sockdoll at January 27th, 2014 18:19 — #8
themudshark at January 27th, 2014 18:31 — #9
eksrae at January 27th, 2014 18:32 — #10
Free meals and a refund. He shoulda went for the hat-trick and dated a flight attendant at the same time.
redesigned at January 27th, 2014 22:16 — #11
not sure if i'd do it because i'd likely feel this was taking advantage of the company, but the resourcefulness is impressive.
nittacci at January 27th, 2014 22:29 — #12
Nah, that's not why we have complicated EULAs. We have those because corporations are trying to avoid ever having a third party examine their one-sided agreements with consumers.
Take for example the most common new element of EULAs, the "arbitration clause". By including this clause, corporations seek to have consumers forfeit any right to legal protections, no matter what. It makes it harder to sue for fraud or enforce a warranty or seek redress of damages. It says, basically, no matter what, you can't go to court, you have to face a quasi-governmental "arbitrator" who is chosen by the corporation. You can't be represented by counsel, you can't appeal. You are bound by whatever the lawyer who works for the corporation decides.
If the new trade agreements go through, such as the TPP, arbitration clauses will become much more powerful and more one-sided. This is what's called "corporate sovereignty", where a corporation circumvents the power of government to act in behalf of the consumer. In fact, it requires that government work on behalf of the corporation against the consumer.
EULAs are not designed to avoid having some poor guy eat for a year. They are designed to turn a freely-engaged transaction that supposed to benefit both parties into a one-way street. They ar e meant as a mechanism of redistributing wealth upward.
lowerhater at January 28th, 2014 01:43 — #13
If the damages you are seeking are under $5,000 and at least enough to warrant the trouble, sue them in Small Claims Court. EULA or not, they need to send a representative to court (and very rarely do). Instead they get served (by the US Postal Service) and immediately call to settle.
I'm 6-1-1 vs. Corporations in Small Claims. Very satisfying
frauenfelder at February 1st, 2014 12:33 — #14
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.