square4 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 It seems that most people do not consider themselves strictly bound by what they contractually or otherwise have agreed to. I wonder what is the cause of this, and if this is expected to ever change, especially in a free society. When most people do not feel obliged to do what they have agreed to, this means that there will be little market pressure applied to the conditions in such agreements, except to the degree that these are enforced. This means people who are strictly honest, will pay a price for it, which means there is an incentive to be dishonest, reinforcing the existing situation. If you feel obliged to do what you sign to do, to ensure compliance, it is needed to at least read the complete text, which people often do not do. As an example, when using web services, most people click agree without reading the agreement, and companies even expect you will not read it. For example, on the Skype website, it said that registering only takes a minute or two. But the register process included an agreement, which requires you to confirm that you have read it (and accept it). If you would actually do so, it is 14165 words, with a reading speed of 300 words per minute, it takes 47 minutes. As a counterargument someone might say, I do not have to read it all, I only have to agree to the legal consequences of the agreement. If that were the actual agreement, then fine, but in most cases, that's not the actual content of the agreement, so the counterargument fails. The Wikipedia article on Standard form contracts has interesting analysis of why people sign such contracts. Then there are also issues in the actual content of contracts, which is to be expected with the lack of market pressure on them. In some cases, the conditions in contracts are not even intended to be followed, but are intended only as a legal cover. If a contract says, you will not do X, it's legal intend is often that if you do X, they cannot be blamed. They actually don't mind if you do X. I have even experienced that the same company that had asked to me to contractually sign to not do X, verbally asked me to do X, which is contradictory. What is your analysis of the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 It seems to me this came about because it is encouraged by the people who write the contracts. Google and Microsoft don't necessarily want you to read the terms and conditions because if you did you would find out how little "privacy" you actually have. This is a pretty big point of contention I have with smart TVs or anything that takes voice commands. Because they are built to constantly listen they are constantly sending data back to home base to be analyzed to better serve you. Now I don't see this as an issue if it's just the company getting your data because they can only use it to better serve you, but when you find out that the FBI has offices in the companies' headquarters then things begin to get worrisome (think 1984 telescreens). So if everyone started reading, and more importantly understanding, the contracts the companies would have a much harder time selling their products. Facebook is another perfect example. Zuckerberg himself is credited with saying he couldn't believe how stupid people were for sharing so much private data with him. I've also seen this personally, last year when we went to resign out lease the guy running the office got really upset that we were reading through everything, asking questions, and requesting changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Contracts should be easy. "I will do x and give y. You will do x' and give y'. If we disagree, we will solve it by doing z." But, just like philosophical discussions, the participants get bogged down in the details and definitions. There have been attempts to fix the definitions with things like the Uniform Commercial Code and so on, but not even all the states can agree to that one (we're looking at you, Louisiana). In come the lawyers to fix things by adding tons and tons of words that have been carefully argued about for a zillion years. That sure helped, didn't it? As someone who writes Statements of Work that end up in contracts, I'm just as frustrated by how hard it is to do well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts