There doesn't need to be special laws for everything.
There doesn't need to be special laws for everything.
Not sure what regulation will really accomplish other than giving them an excuse to exit the business faster.
Something like a safe deposit box should be a single page document with something like this:
- cost is $X/month and prices are revaluated every Y months and can increase by a maximum of $Z/month - may access the box X times/month without any additional fees - bank's liability is max $X or Y months of rent, whichever is higher/lower - if rent is not paid, X happens, and after Y months of non-payment, Z happens - policy/fee for lost keys
I haven't actually opened one, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contract was 10 pages long and the maximum liability was somewhere in the middle in fairly small print.
I think all contracts should be written like this. If any clause of the legal code contradicts the summary for layman, then the summary for layman should take precedence during its interpretation in the court.
This practice is not unusual. Books often start with a preface or foreword. Very dense technical or research papers start with an abstract and introduction. But for some reason contracts do not follow this practice.
https://www.chase.com/content/dam/chase-ux/documents/persona...
Imagine if it were legal for companies to pass something off as a "bank account" when they weren't actually a bank. And it explains it all in the fine print, but as we all know nobody reads the fine print, especially when the offered product is so seemingly familiar. We'd have fly-by-night operations losing people's money left and right, and then legally washing their hands of it.
Robinhood’s attempt at checking accounts come to mind...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2018/12/14/sipc-hea...
Attorney here! (Not legal advice -- consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction).
In order to prevail in a negligence case, you have to establish duty of care in your complaint. You can't simply declare it exists and expect a court to accept it without question.
That said, I generally agree with the rest of your comment. You can always tell how much entities are really looking out for your interest by reading their limitations-of-liability clauses. Wise consumers should purchase insurance to cover the gap.
Such a document has the same sort of purpose as a certificate of authenticity you'd get from an appraiser; but you use a notary in cases where the thing doesn't need authentication to be valuable, instead being a liquid asset with a clear market value. The notary doesn't write down such a value, or even know it; they just sign off on a description of the item, knowing that the value can later be readily determined from the description by any interested party.
Of course, to make this work, you need the notary to sign off on the contents of the collection right before you secure the collection into storage. Otherwise, you could just make arbitrary alterations to the contents yourself. For this reason—and because notaries don't usually like getting dragged all around town to vouch for things—usually a bank will retain the services of notary of their own, and offer it to safe-deposit-box users as an option. If a notary is used to vouch for the contents on first deposit, then a notary must be used on all further deposits/withdrawals to "retain the chain of custody." This turns the safe deposit box into a managed safe-deposit service.
A notary can acknowledge the depositor's claim and identity, but can't be held liable for the depositor's claims.
A notary can verify that a man with John Doe's legal ID claims to be depositing one (1) Shroud of Turin and twelve (12) Pieces of Eight from a Spanish Galleon with certificate of authenticity from the Franklin Mint, but the notary is not verifying the truth about or value of the actual contents.
I have never heard that such a thing as private notary exists.
As a consumer, I have no idea what the risks of a safe deposit box are, and so have no idea what I need in the way of insurance to cover those risks.
The bank, on the other hand, has real data about the safety of their safe deposit boxes, and the value of loses when those boxes are compromised.
No, because the value stored in the boxes differs by orders of magnitude and the bank doesn't even know the value.
$200/yr is just not a reasonable amount of payment to take on a 10s of millions of dollars liability, and most box customers wouldn't pay whatever price would make that liability reasonable.
(Based on the 500x annual cap mentioned in the article you could imagine that the bank would want $20k/yr for a $10m liability)