And, as long as it doesn't breach any explicit laws, that condition is equally enforceable.
The German system above appears to specifically address that issue with US law.
Parsing 20+ pages of legalese, when it could be shipped as a diff instead, is simply inefficient.
That isn't true; if the court concludes that no reasonable person would ever have knowingly agreed, it will find that the condition is unenforceable. It's a real standard, but I don't recall the relevant technical terms.
Obviously it's hard to meet that standard, but breaching an explicit law is very much not a requirement for unenforceability.
edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furn....
> when a party of little bargaining power, and hence little real choice, signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that his consent, or even an objective manifestation of his consent, was ever given to all the terms.
> In such a case the usual rule that the terms of the agreement are not to be questioned should be abandoned and the court should consider whether the terms of the contract are so unfair that enforcement should be withheld.
Point 1: You're probably yourselves vs a professional management company / large property owner. They obviously bring more resources and experience to a legal case than you do, in addition to simply having more time to engage in one.
Point 2: That's assuming you can even take the case to court, and didn't sign away any disputes into arbitration.
I don't think that matters at all; if you have a term in your contract that a court will find unconscionable, an arbitrator is... shall we say, extremely likely to find the same thing.
You're also free to haul the arbitrator into court if they make an egregious ruling. The fact that you were subject to binding arbitration and the arbitrator awarded your firstborn son to the company isn't going to be any more convincing to a judge than the alternative fact that your contract clearly states you're giving up your firstborn son to the company.
That actually works against them in court, especially in the particular scenario being discussed.
He's a good, law abiding fellow, so he did it. It was the last thing he needed to deal with on top of all the stress of moving. I would have just ignored it, let them take me to court if they want.
Generally, contracts on the US where there is one party who writes them and another party who doesn't get to edit them (leases, employment contracts, etc.) have a lot of case law about what can and can't be enforced on the party who doesn't have authorship control. Contacts where both parties are writing them have a lot more freedom to screw a participant, but also generally savvier participants.
I don't feel its unreasonable to read through a dozen or two pages of contracts for something like a rental lease that will eat up 30% of your income for the next year; and I've never felt that my city/state is in dire need of improving the situation. The problem with online service terms is more-so that: they aren't standardized, they all say different things, they oftentimes claim things that aren't legally enforceable, they're usually a UI afterthought... they're just bad. We do need some kind of legislation for those. I don't feel that requiring a summary is the answer.
And furthermore, it's a common misconception that something is 'legal' to stipulate just because they've seen it in their contracts before. People put unenforceable crap in contracts all the time because 9/10 people will just believe it's enforceable and go along with it.
Notice how anything related to wealth management (contracts, financial concepts and practices, etc) is rarely (if ever) included in compulsory schooling.
This is by design.
So we ended up with Western education systems that produce intellectuals who conceptually despise wealth management, ensuring education remains thoroughly detached from the actual levers of power. That suits rulers just fine.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/data-most-states-re...
Given the number of different templates floating around tailored to most individual states, that’s either an extreme coincidence, or there is shared ownership, management, or legal representation between the different apartment complexes.