When a Right Isn't a Right

>> I used to be involved in writing business to business contracts, and the lawyers used to tell me that writing in certain waivers or disclaimers was pointless, because even if they were there in black and white, any court would prove them invalid in law. <<

I've heard that from various sources. The problems include:

1) The victims targeted by this attack are all poor. Not only does that limit their ability to sue now, but many of them have always been poor. That usually means an inferior education, so they probably don't know what their rights are. They're easy prey for slick marketeers. The lenders know this; it's a key reason why they targeted that market.

2) America is currently more concerned with what is profitable than with what is right; that's what created the mortgage crisis in the first place. Plenty of laws and courts uphold things that are wrong, or against natural law. The tendency is to favor corporations over individuals, even when individuals are harmed or killed by corporate actions. This makes it risky to trust that the courts will do what's right.

>> Ideally somebody would take one of those waivers you describe and bring a test case in the courts. I hope someone is brave enough.<<

That requires not only bravery, but the knowledge that a lawsuit is possible despite the contract, the money to lodge a suit, and the time and energy to see it through. The chance of a poor person having all of those things is slim, although it would be wonderful if such a suit came together.

>> A company should not be able to say "anyway, we have no duty to provide any of the things you are paying for, so there". <<

In fact, I've seen that concept propagating wildly, in almost those exact words. Let me think ... "You understand there is no guarantee that this will have the desired effect. It may have no effect, or it may make things worse." Why would anyone put up with that nonsense? Because that provider is the only one available, or there's no time to get another one, or there are others all of whom now say the same thing. Businesses literally don't want to promise that their services will do you any good, or that they'll do you no harm. It's appalling.

>>It's against natural law.<<

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if it were against paper law also? Businesses shouldn't be allowed to defraud people out of their rights, even if the contract is unenforcable. If something has been established as not valid contract procedure, it should not be allowed in a contract. And yet, there they are, all over the place. That creates an impression that those things are valid, because why else would they be so frequent?

I'm really not in favor of event waivers either, for similar reason: people need to have legal recourse in case they are harmed. If somebody is hiking at an event, trips over their own feet, and breaks an ankle -- that's not anyone's fault, and shouldn't lead to a lawsuit. If instead a wooden deck gives way, resulting in a broken ankle -- then it's reasonable to expect the site owner to pay some or all of the medical bills, because they were negligent in maintaining safe facilities. If food is served, it is expected to be safe to eat; if the turkey is left out for several hours so that it makes people sick, that is the fault of the cooking crew and the victims should again have legal recourse. Sensible people will work this out between themselves and not take it to court, but the court option needs to be there in case one party is not sensible.

I am endlessly frustrated by America's knack for screwing things up at both ends of the spectrum: the courts are jammed with ridiculously inappropriate suits, while at the same time, people are being stripped of their right to sue for harm that was someone else's actual fault. Some parts of the system are just so broken, I don't even know where to begin fixing them. And when people put stuff in contracts that may or may not even be enforceable, it's difficult or impossible to tell if the nonsense you're reading is genuine or illusory.

The SCA, as an example, is one of the more intricately organized groups I've ever seen. They are filed as such, though the styling may vary from one region to another. Some events are more casual, and if something went wrong, blame would logically fall on an individual. But the bigger holdings are big and entrenched with many of the same people doing the same jobs for years: a practiced team. Suing the whole SCA wouldn't make much sense for most incidents I could think up, but suing a local chapter or subset for having mismanaged an event to people's harm might make sense. Certainly other recreational groups have been sued for harmful food or activities.

What it comes down to is, people need a legitimate way to resolve disputes. If that's taken away, many of them will resort to undesirable methods of satisfaction. That would be bad, in the same way that sealing steam valves is bad. Things explode.