undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavewa3y ago0 comments

A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with IKEA furniture and then they caught you buying stuff somewhere else and kicked you out.

The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you return to the house.

If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!

0 comments

13 comments · 5 top-level

Bran_son3y ago· 8 in thread

> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house

I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!

If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge.

If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.

alphanullmeric3y ago

You signed the contract. You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. You could sign a contract to eat shit for a dollar. You’re correct in that some countries restrict consent between individuals.

janoc3y ago

That's utter nonsense. You can't consent to stuff that is against the law, esp. when the "power balance" when signing the contract is extremely lopsided. Such contract clauses are routinely ruled invalid and unenforceable.

alphanullmeric3y ago

Whether I consent to something has little to do with the law. I would hope that the law upholds consent, but as we see in the EU, it doesn’t.

1 more reply

rvense3y ago

Of course it matters how one-sided it is, and of course it matters whether or not this was obvious at the time of purchase. There's absolutely no way this is legal in Europe, but unfortunately it's sometimes hard to make these big American companies follow the law.

_proofs3y ago

this is.. not how contracts work at all. contracts in bad-faith or that impose unreasonable stipulations are not exactly binding regardless of a signature.

the question of course becomes whether or not it is worth it to litigate but that is another conversation.

alphanullmeric3y ago

I described the ideal. Ideally, you wouldn’t be able to sign a contract whose contents were made transparent to you, then sue so that only the part of the contract benefitting you is upheld. Yet here we are.

Bran_son3y ago

> You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was.

The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.

alphanullmeric3y ago

Do your part and say no. Unlike the EU, we won’t make that illegal.

1 more reply

rvense3y ago

That's not a more apt analogy at all, that's the stupid explanation they might give to tell themselves they're not being bastards, which they objectively are. It's not about laws or contracts, why are you twisting yourself to defend this?

People bought a printer to print, they were able to print, now they're not due to HP's vandalism. It's so obviously not OK. If HP can't make a printer to sell for $80 then should just not sell printers for $80.

alanbernstein3y ago

The problem is that none of this is obvious to an unaware consumer who thinks they're just buying a printer. The marketing practices surrounding this are deliberate and have a side effect of producing a huge amount of preventable waste.

mrighele3y ago

It's not an apt comparison at all because renting a house and buy an appliance are two completely different things. In particular when you buy a printer you don't sign any contract so HP cannot say "you accepted our terms when you bought it". No I didn't.

serf3y ago

>If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!

it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time.

but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

13 comments · 5 top-level

Bran_son3y ago· 8 in thread

> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house

I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!

If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.

alphanullmeric3y ago

janoc3y ago

alphanullmeric3y ago

Whether I consent to something has little to do with the law. I would hope that the law upholds consent, but as we see in the EU, it doesn’t.

1 more reply

rvense3y ago

_proofs3y ago

this is.. not how contracts work at all. contracts in bad-faith or that impose unreasonable stipulations are not exactly binding regardless of a signature.

the question of course becomes whether or not it is worth it to litigate but that is another conversation.

alphanullmeric3y ago

Bran_son3y ago

> You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was.

The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.

alphanullmeric3y ago

Do your part and say no. Unlike the EU, we won’t make that illegal.

1 more reply

rvense3y ago

alanbernstein3y ago

mrighele3y ago

serf3y ago

>If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!

it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time.

but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse