undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdijit2y ago0 comments

Any time the law sets things like "reasonable" it's a quagmire.

For every utterance of "reasonable" in law you can be sure over $1B of laywer fees have been (or will be) spent.

0 comments

True, to a degree. But let's imagine that (1) FedEx felt that profits were more desirable than legal expenses, and (2) FedEx had some power over the sending and contents of the notifications. Might FedEx decide to start following well-regarded standards for writing and sending legit-looking electronic notifications? And iterate from there, as an ongoing strategy?

Repulsion95132y ago

I think the answer here is "don't do things that are borderline (un)reasonable"

calgoo2y ago

Could just shorten it to: “Don’t be a di*”

tialaramex2y ago

You can spend as much as lawyer money as you want on arguing whatever nonsense you want, reasonableness is a common standard so sure, people will have spent lots of money pointlessly arguing about it but that's not a problem with reasonableness.

MichaelZuo2y ago

Sometimes the arguers win and set a new precedent... so it definitely creates a new problem with everyone who subsequently encounters the issue.

tialaramex2y ago

Sure, I'm certainly not going to pretend this is perfect, but it seems to be working basically fine and I don't see "reasonableness" - which actually avoids a lot of wrangling - as a problem.

Compare Legal Tender against an ordinary Reasonableness test. Legal Tender says that I only have to accept payment of your debt in specific forms (the "Legal Tender") and I can refuse to accept other payment.

So maybe our currency is Doodads, the Legal Tender law specifies that the 10 and 50 Doodad Coins shall be Legal Tender, and you owe me 15000 Doodads. You try to pay by card, I refuse. You try to write a cheque, I refuse. You try to pay with 150 of the 100 Doodad Coins, but again I refuse. Eventually I take you to court and... I win?! You did not pay your debt in the required Legal Tender.

With Reasonableness the court might buy that it was OK to refuse to accept the card (maybe I don't have a merchant account) and maybe even the cheque too (but already by then I expect a judge to have a lot of questions about how I thought you would pay and I'd better have a really good answer) but the 100 Doodad Coins are clearly money, with Reasonableness as our standard it's obvious that I lose my case, there's no need to write a law saying "Yeah duh, the 100 Doodad Coin is money" because a reasonable person can see that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bell-cot2y ago

Repulsion95132y ago

I think the answer here is "don't do things that are borderline (un)reasonable"

calgoo2y ago

Could just shorten it to: “Don’t be a di*”

tialaramex2y ago

MichaelZuo2y ago

Sometimes the arguers win and set a new precedent... so it definitely creates a new problem with everyone who subsequently encounters the issue.

tialaramex2y ago

Sure, I'm certainly not going to pretend this is perfect, but it seems to be working basically fine and I don't see "reasonableness" - which actually avoids a lot of wrangling - as a problem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse