Re:United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Fa...
by notacoward on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @10:23PM
(#14103624)
Two important points raised by a lawyer about how to interpret the Contract of Carriage (or any other).
(1) When the meaning of a term (e.g. "boarding") is ambiguous or undefined, courts are required to interpret it in the way less favorable to the drafter of the contract.
(2) If the conditions under which one party may do something are enumerated, they may not do it for reasons other than those on the list.
Both principles of legal interpretation go against United in this case. Remember, this is civil law - not criminal. The burden of proof is very different. While many such contracts are too one-sided, rules such as these exist to ensure that they can't be entirely so. A completely one-sided contract might even violate the requirement that it involve mutual consideration, making it a legal non-entity.
I don't think it's fair of you to criticize either the length or the obscurity of terms of service. After all, you could replace nearly all of them with:
" 1. We have every right of every kind and can do anything, without being liable for anything.
2. you have no rights of any kind and may do nothing, except those afforded by law, which you hereby waive as far as legally possible. "
More forward-thinking startups might add something to the effect of "Of course this does not mean we are Satan! We will naturally make an effort to provide roughly the service you have paid for. However, nothing in this section should be construed as a statement that we shall not act like Satan in any particular instance. We reserve the right to be Satan at any time and our sole discretion without providing any prior written warning. You've been warned."
Did I miss anything?