01-11-2015 12:26 PM - edited 01-11-2015 12:28 PM
These clauses are everywhere and are designed to prevent consumers and employees seeking legal redress, especially using "class actions" the only realistic avenue for "small people" where individual sums claimed are less than four figures. The report in the New York Times will shock you. It is true that businesses have been harried by some actions which have been frivolous, but their protections now mean companies can bill you small amounts wrongly and you can't get redress. My Internet Service Provider is the worst for this; I have to spend on phone calls to sort things out but then something else appears; and your bank can delay charges and payments, changing their time order, to maximise your overdraft bills.
It's an American report but I believe that it applies in Britain particularly in online contracts. I'm not naming names but the companies that aren't using them might be in the minority.
01-11-2015 5:59 PM
Forbes com has published an answer to the NYT accusing it of rookie mistakes. The hero of the NYT story has a history as a successful litigant against consumer interests. Forbes says that if a company "nickle and dimes" you, go elswhere.
01-11-2015 6:10 PM
A link might help.
Is this the original article you are referring to?
And is this the other (Forbes.com)?
01-11-2015 10:18 PM
Yes, thanks, right both times. I was not sure if urls to outside sites are allowed now. It is