Fine print and labels

[bermich]

How do they get away with this crap now adays. It is getting out of control the way these lawyers can word labels and contracts.

Target gift cards: A lawsuit said that GIFT CARDS could not expire any time ever. Once paid for, that gift card was good for life. Well TARGET (kinda like Walmart) somehow had the balls to say that they charge a service charge if the card isnt used in a certain amount of time. A SERVICE CHARGE for a gift card. You already paid for it once. Now they want you to pay 3 dollars a month for it if you do NOT use it. WTF.

Disney Land tickets. Buy 4 days for the price of 2. The only catch is: you have to go four days in a row. 4 consecutive days. Who the heII does that?

Blockbuster video. Get 100 dvd rentals for a certain price. The only catch is: You can only rent one a week each and every week. If you dont rent one for one week, you lose that rental. So you have to spend that discount over a period of TWO YEARS. This is for real. ALSO: That discount is good ONLY at that ONE store. If you try to go to a different blockbuster, Too F'ing bad for you.

Weight gainer. 3500 calories. GREAT. Fine print reads: based on servings PER DAY. Well no fvck. Basically you need 3 shakes to reach 3500 calories. That is COMPLETE misleading. Why not just say: Weight gainer 40,000. Based on servings per YEAR.

The new trend now adays is to say THIS ITEM IS FREE. The word FREE no longer has to mean : no payment required. Lawyers now define FREE as "The FREEDOM TO CHOOSE" Meaning, once you BUY this product, you have the freedom to use it however you want... I swear this is real shlt.
Also, one item defined it as, the FREEDOM to express yourself.

I wont even get started with cell phone contracts being misleading.

So many exclusions and exemptions and expiration dates, and you have to buy one ticket at full price before your free ticket can be used. You have to activate the pass with a credit card before it can be used, etc.
The employees selling these things dont know the contracts so when you ask them they say whatever it takes to get your money.

I ALWAYS ask what all the exclusions are and they try to get you off the subject by asking you a question and getting you side tracked. It is kind of insulting when they do that to the point of pissing me off.

[Prime]

Disney Land tickets. Buy 4 days for the price of 2. The only catch is: you have to go four days in a row. 4 consecutive days. Who the heII does that?

.

When i was a kid I went with my family to ****ty euro disney for a holiday and went in 4 days in a row. I put 10 Francs in a computer game and some little ****ing French bastard child waltzes over and presses the 2 player button!!! Well i pushed him off and called over my brother to play. Man i was pissed!

[dirtybrit55]

Haha

[Pale Horse]

Soooo right on! How about cell phone bills? Ever figure them out completely? Mine is through the roof every month. And every month I get an education in another section of the "fine print". Lawyers suck. They created the system and administer it to keep themselves in business.

[chicamahomico]

The onus is on the consumer to read the fine print. How could it be any other way? I agree that many of the things you mentioned are lame but when you buy or lease something it is up to you to understand how that product works whether it's a cell phone contract or a complex finanacial instrument.

If you did not take the time to thoroughly read through a cell phone contract (or any other) then really there is no one to blame except yourself because you did sign a document in which you claimed full understanding of the terms of that contract. Yes, there are actually people who read license agreements. Who is really to blame if most people are too lazy to read to stupid to understand what they are committing themselves to? Caveat emptor!

[Pale Horse]

Yes agreed we are supposed to read these but these are binding contracts written by lawyers in legalese that most people can't make heads nor tails of. That's the whole point of the fine print. It's mumbo jumbo to confuse the consumer. Would you agree?

[chicamahomico]

I agree completely. GVT's attempt to legislate 'clarity' into contracts, especially consumer contracts or those intended for laypeople, but it's a fleeting goal. Expressing complex terms of agreement in simple language is not always easy and you simply cannot cover all of the implications that could be derived from a given contract in the contract itself. Big catch 22 if you ask me. The best thing a person can do IMO is be as dilligent about reading everything to which you sign your name, be as informed as possible, and know when you need to have a lawyer act on your behalf.

Who would lease a car without having a lawyer review the contract? Not me. IMO if your monthly cell phone bill exceeds $200, then you should have a lawyer review the terms for you. You don't need to hire Johnny Cochran for this stuff, in most cases a relatively cheap notary will suffice.

Yes agreed we are supposed to read these but these are binding contracts written by lawyers in legalese that most people can't make heads nor tails of. That's the whole point of the fine print. It's mumbo jumbo to confuse the consumer. Would you agree?

[Pale Horse]

I agree and I agree that I have signed stuff without really reading it and getting burned, lesson learned. While it may not make for easy reading if a contract was designed by a lawyer then a lawyer should review it for the purchaser.

Unfortunately you can't buy anything anymore that doesn't have all kinds of back doors for the seller and nothing but bend over for the consumer. We all learn as we go.

[bermich]

I agree and I agree that I have signed stuff without really reading it and getting burned, lesson learned. While it may not make for easy reading if a contract was designed by a lawyer then a lawyer should review it for the purchaser.

Unfortunately you can't buy anything anymore that doesn't have all kinds of back doors for the seller and nothing but bend over for the consumer. We all learn as we go.

Even if you do read the fine print, you still need to be a lawyer to understand it. The loop hole for the consumer is to ask all the questions cause the employee needs to be familar with the products he sells. Thus, the company is responsible for the employee knowing. So, when you ask the employee if there are any exclusions etc, he must tell you.
Once you discuss that with the employee, it becomes a VERBAL CONTRACT which is easier to understand and he must disclose all information to you that is relavant to the contract. If he failed to discuss a fact or clause, the VERBAL CONTRACT IS VOID and you can then back out or complete a new contract.

Some people cant read and the contract must be verbally explained....Same difference and clearified if there is something not understood.

[bubbathegut]

fine print sucks