Contract of Adhesion

 

I am trying to log in to my Chase accounts online, and am presented with a checkbox for “I have read and agree to…” the updated blah blah.  The first document is ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN PAGES.

This is abuse.  I signed up for a service under the terms at the time.  While I understand that there’s probably a clause in there about updating terms from time to time, this is beyond the pale.  One potential solution would be to offer a 90-day transition period.  This is what a grown-up organization, or one that values its customers, would do.  Granted, I’m not a big fish, so it’s not as though I’ll withdraw my billions and make them take note.  Still, the rule of law is supposed to ensure that good faith is enough, that one need not be a billionaire to be treated other than a dog, and that one need not wear body armor and carry grenades in order to not be assaulted.

This “agree or screw off” approach with absolutely zero haggling is I believe referred to as a contract of adhesion, and is supposed to be difficult to enforce as compared to a normal contract in which two parties sit down and sign.  The problem is that in our modern technocracy, enforcement is not required — mere power is sufficient to consummate the relationship.  The contract enforces itself, which is both elegant and chilling, as I had no input into the terms of the contract.  They already have my money, after all, and going to court to get it out is also a loss.

A better design would have offered some chance to review the contract before accepting, while still conducting business for a limited time under the old terms — the terms I already agreed to.  Another better design would have been to offer a summary of changes, along with a reminder of key points carried over, preferably with liunks or refs to relevant sections.  But better designs are not required, and are probably seen as a loss by any entity that can dictate terms.

Yes, I can refuse to agree to the new terms, and pursue some offline method of getting out.  Or I can also clear off a chunk of time and dedicate it to reading that contract RIGHT NOW instead of getting on with managing my stuff.   What I cannot do is use this afternoon the way I wanted to and still retain the service I signed up for, and for which I pay.  Therefore, the loss is mine either way.

And that’s the way it goes.  Sit boy, sit.  Good dog.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. 

    Nobody can explain why we need 2% inflation in plain English. No Congressional mandate or law. It simply came out of the basement of the Eccles building. 

    All done at gunpoint. 

     

    • #31
  2. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    The Social Contract is the most egregious contract of adhesion in history that makes Chase’s contract look like a love letter. Lysander Spooner had a couple of things to say about that for those who are interested. As odious as modern terms of service are, they’re more equitable than the Social Contract; at least you can walk away from Chase without having to pull a Ted Kaczynski. .

    Before I go, is the sort of thing that results in college libertarians decrying their own existence because they didn’t agree to be born?

    Relax. It’s just an observation about the nature of the Social Contract and the poor quality of the reasoning behind it. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    • #32
  3. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    Nobody can explain why we need 2% inflation in plain English. No Congressional mandate or law. It simply came out of the basement of the Eccles building.

    All done at gunpoint.

     

    Isn’t it more like, “Nobody dares to explain why we need 2% inflation”?

    • #33
  4. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    The Social Contract is the most egregious contract of adhesion in history that makes Chase’s contract look like a love letter. Lysander Spooner had a couple of things to say about that for those who are interested. As odious as modern terms of service are, they’re more equitable than the Social Contract; at least you can walk away from Chase without having to pull a Ted Kaczynski. .

    Before I go, is the sort of thing that results in college libertarians decrying their own existence because they didn’t agree to be born?

    Relax. It’s just an observation about the nature of the Social Contract and the poor quality of the reasoning behind it. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    Okay, I checked it out, and it is appallingly poorly argued in the first several paragraphs (which bookend the preamble) being bent from the beginning to assume the conclusion, that the Constitution only applied as a gentlemen’s agreement affecting only the gentlemen who signed it.  And so on.

    It seems to argue that the Constitution established not a form of government nor a body, but merely itself, which is needlessly overstepping boundaries between thing and name, document and construct, word and meaning.  In order to get past the very first paragraph, one must assume that no “going concern” consideration is due the US, the Constitution, and probably anything else for that matter. 

    He ducks into some poor analogies about a man buying or building a house, and planting a tree.  True, his descendants are not “bound” to live in the house, but when it becomes their property, it is their property in full.  No, they did not build or buy the house themselves, but this is a stupid and frankly mentally ill focus.  They are free to live in it, to sell it, to build upon it, or to burn it to the ground.  of course, they might have to fight about this with their siblings who are not similarly inclined.


    Perhaps there is some subtle point here which I am not seeing.  I assure you that I do not see it.

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    The Social Contract is the most egregious contract of adhesion in history that makes Chase’s contract look like a love letter. Lysander Spooner had a couple of things to say about that for those who are interested. As odious as modern terms of service are, they’re more equitable than the Social Contract; at least you can walk away from Chase without having to pull a Ted Kaczynski. .

    Before I go, is the sort of thing that results in college libertarians decrying their own existence because they didn’t agree to be born?

    Relax. It’s just an observation about the nature of the Social Contract and the poor quality of the reasoning behind it. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    Okay, I checked it out, and it is appallingly poorly argued in the first several paragraphs (which bookend the preamble) being bent from the beginning to assume the conclusion, that the Constitution only applied as a gentlemen’s agreement affecting only the gentlemen who signed it. And so on.

    It seems to argue that the Constitution established not a form of government nor a body, but merely itself, which is needlessly overstepping boundaries between thing and name, document and construct, word and meaning. In order to get past the very first paragraph, one must assume that no “going concern” consideration is due the US, the Constitution, and probably anything else for that matter.

    He ducks into some poor analogies about a man buying or building a house, and planting a tree. True, his descendants are not “bound” to live in the house, but when it becomes their property, it is their property in full. No, they did not build or buy the house themselves, but this is a stupid and frankly mentally ill focus. They are free to live in it, to sell it, to build upon it, or to burn it to the ground. of course, they might have to fight about this with their siblings who are not similarly inclined.


    Perhaps there is some subtle point here which I am not seeing. I assure you that I do not see it.

    Please, don’t BOTH of you go Mark Camp on me/us!

    • #35
  6. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    Nobody can explain why we need 2% inflation in plain English. No Congressional mandate or law. It simply came out of the basement of the Eccles building.

    All done at gunpoint.

     

    Isn’t it more like, “Nobody dares to explain why we need 2% inflation”?

    Absolutely.  We “need” 2% inflation to “receive” the depreciation caused by a debt-based, funny-money-backed economy.  We’re not just bankrupt in reasonable terms — we haven’t even remained “solvent” given the assumption that losing 2% annually is sustainable!

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    Nobody can explain why we need 2% inflation in plain English. No Congressional mandate or law. It simply came out of the basement of the Eccles building.

    All done at gunpoint.

     

    Isn’t it more like, “Nobody dares to explain why we need 2% inflation”?

    Absolutely. We “need” 2% inflation to “receive” the depreciation caused by a debt-based, funny-money-backed economy. We’re not just bankrupt in reasonable terms — we haven’t even remained “solvent” given the assumption that losing 2% annually is sustainable!

    If only it were only 2%…

    • #37
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    Nobody can explain why we need 2% inflation in plain English. No Congressional mandate or law. It simply came out of the basement of the Eccles building.

    All done at gunpoint.

     

    Isn’t it more like, “Nobody dares to explain why we need 2% inflation”?

    It does very few people any good. It works for about 15 years and then the problems kick in.

    • #38
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The economy is deflationary. Why should they force inflation? They pretend to manage the side effects until they can’t anymore.

    If you wonder why conservatism doesn’t give any traction, there it is.

    • #39
  10. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    The Social Contract is the most egregious contract of adhesion in history that makes Chase’s contract look like a love letter. Lysander Spooner had a couple of things to say about that for those who are interested. As odious as modern terms of service are, they’re more equitable than the Social Contract; at least you can walk away from Chase without having to pull a Ted Kaczynski. .

    Before I go, is the sort of thing that results in college libertarians decrying their own existence because they didn’t agree to be born?

    Relax. It’s just an observation about the nature of the Social Contract and the poor quality of the reasoning behind it. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    Okay, I checked it out, and it is appallingly poorly argued in the first several paragraphs (which bookend the preamble) being bent from the beginning to assume the conclusion, that the Constitution only applied as a gentlemen’s agreement affecting only the gentlemen who signed it. And so on.

    It seems to argue that the Constitution established not a form of government nor a body, but merely itself, which is needlessly overstepping boundaries between thing and name, document and construct, word and meaning. In order to get past the very first paragraph, one must assume that no “going concern” consideration is due the US, the Constitution, and probably anything else for that matter.

    He ducks into some poor analogies about a man buying or building a house, and planting a tree. True, his descendants are not “bound” to live in the house, but when it becomes their property, it is their property in full. No, they did not build or buy the house themselves, but this is a stupid and frankly mentally ill focus. They are free to live in it, to sell it, to build upon it, or to burn it to the ground. of course, they might have to fight about this with their siblings who are not similarly inclined.


    Perhaps there is some subtle point here which I am not seeing. I assure you that I do not see it.

    I only read the first few paragraphs of the Spooner thing on the Constitution and it sounds pretty ridiculous.  He is saying that because there is no language specifying that the Constitution applies to the descendants of the signers and their constituency, that it does not apply to the descendants, meaning us.  If we use his logic, then no law ever enacted would  apply to those born after the enactment, unless that law specifies that it should.  Talk about expanding more legal mumbo-jumbo in our documents than we already have!  I can’t imagine the nightmare of extra paperwork.  Then again, maybe I can, because we are already there, hence this post.

    • #40
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Before I go, is the sort of thing that results in college libertarians decrying their own existence because they didn’t agree to be born?

    Relax. It’s just an observation about the nature of the Social Contract and the poor quality of the reasoning behind it. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    Okay, I checked it out, and it is appallingly poorly argued in the first several paragraphs (which bookend the preamble) being bent from the beginning to assume the conclusion, that the Constitution only applied as a gentlemen’s agreement affecting only the gentlemen who signed it. And so on.

    It seems to argue that the Constitution established not a form of government nor a body, but merely itself, which is needlessly overstepping boundaries between thing and name, document and construct, word and meaning. In order to get past the very first paragraph, one must assume that no “going concern” consideration is due the US, the Constitution, and probably anything else for that matter.

    He ducks into some poor analogies about a man buying or building a house, and planting a tree. True, his descendants are not “bound” to live in the house, but when it becomes their property, it is their property in full. No, they did not build or buy the house themselves, but this is a stupid and frankly mentally ill focus. They are free to live in it, to sell it, to build upon it, or to burn it to the ground. of course, they might have to fight about this with their siblings who are not similarly inclined.


    Perhaps there is some subtle point here which I am not seeing. I assure you that I do not see it.

    I only read the first few paragraphs of the Spooner thing on the Constitution and it sounds pretty ridiculous. He is saying that because there is no language specifying that the Constitution applies to the descendants of the signers and their constituency, that it does not apply to the descendants, meaning us. If we use his logic, then no law ever enacted would apply to those born after the enactment, unless that law specifies that it should. Talk about expanding more legal mumbo-jumbo in our documents than we already have! I can’t imagine the nightmare of extra paperwork. Then again, maybe I can, because we are already there, hence this post.

    What’s your excuse for holding children accountable to laws passed by people they couldn’t vote for?!?!?

    Obviously, no law can be applied to anyone who wasn’t at least 18 AND able to have voted for whoever passed it, before then.  So for the House, that would mean at least age 20, for the Senate possibly 24.

    • #41
  12. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    This Spooner stuff sounds like SovCit bait.

    • #42
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I only read the first few paragraphs of the Spooner thing on the Constitution and it sounds pretty ridiculous.  He is saying that because there is no language specifying that the Constitution applies to the descendants of the signers and their constituency, that it does not apply to the descendants, meaning us

    Except there is:

     

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of

    • #43
  14. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I only read the first few paragraphs of the Spooner thing on the Constitution and it sounds pretty ridiculous. He is saying that because there is no language specifying that the Constitution applies to the descendants of the signers and their constituency, that it does not apply to the descendants, meaning us.

    Except there is:

     

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of

    I guess Spooner missed that phrase.  So did I, frankly…………

    • #44
  15. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I only read the first few paragraphs of the Spooner thing on the Constitution and it sounds pretty ridiculous. He is saying that because there is no language specifying that the Constitution applies to the descendants of the signers and their constituency, that it does not apply to the descendants, meaning us.

    Except there is:

     

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of

    I guess Spooner missed that phrase. So did I, frankly…………

    He deals with it early on, but dismisses it in passing.  Hence the inheritors of a house in one of his analogies.  

    • #45
  16. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Hey, lighten up.  They no longer have that clause about surrendering your firstborn child, blood sacrifices to Baphomet or debt in perpetuity.  People complained and they listened because they love their customers.  That is who they are.

    • #46
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.