Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanistbot | Hacker News Reader

The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts.

I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I asked if they had a printed copy so I wasn't holding up the entire line.

Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it."

Easy to say when your lawyers wrote it. It turned out to include both a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement. I did not attend that meetup.

View on HN

100%

It’s ridiculous how flippant and deceptive companies are about signing non-competes. Sometimes they neglect to mention it until you actually show up for work. So there you are, depending on this new job, standing in front of your new boss, compelled to create and maintain a positive relationship, presented with a legal contract that significantly damaged your leverage and alternate prospects.

That might even be criminal.

Often, I hear from some about how non-competes in some states are “non-enforceable”. But even when that’s true it doesn’t inoculate you from serious problems.

A friend signed a non-compete regarding professional services when he want to work (as an independent contractor, mind you) and was sued by the company after he left. He lawyered up and won, but the case took 18 months due to stalling and delays by the company. During that 18 months the judge had granted an injunction preventing him from providing similar services, leaving him effectively unemployed. It did great damage to his savings and the strength of his resume, which now had a significant gap.

As I said, he won! But he was awarded no damages, despite the victory. Seeing this play out convinced me that even you’re in the right, the process can be plenty of punishment on its own.

He received no damages after winning a case brought on by a company that prevented him from working for 1.5 years? That doesn't seem like justice to me.

> That might even be criminal.

Careful with that word. Non-competes are non-enforceable in California and other jurisdictions. Some people say "non-competes are illegal in California", but it is not a crime to ask someone to sign a contract with a non-enforceable provision.

The criminal part I referred to is when it is insisted that you sign it under duress.

One of the best quant firms, TGS, is located in CA and enforces non-competes no problem. They had an employee sue, his NC got waived but he had to pay 7-figures to TGS.

In lawyer's fees or in damages?

Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it."

I'm a Canuck, so centuries of legal, common law separation here...

But if someone misrepresents what a contract is, and even more so applies pressure to sign, it's meaningless.

My understanding is that this goes back to "make your mark" and lower levels of literacy, and in modern times, that legalese is gibberish to many, thus misrepresenting what you're signing can effect enforcement/validity.

It's very stupid for them to brush it off like that.

(I wouldn't have signed either, and have walked from jobs and contracts over absurd NDAs. One client actually wanted me to sign a forever NDA, but 1/2 way through the contract! Wtf?! Negotiate that at contract sign, not months later!)

We do have what we call "fraudulent misrepresentation" in the US. It could give me grounds to seek damages or invalidation of certain misrepresented provisions, but doesn't automatically make the contract meaningless over here. The two problems are specificity and proof, both of which require more consent from the receptionist than they are probably willing to go along with.

It would be fraud to misrepresent a material fact at time of signing, such as the quality of goods or, say, if a loan officer says that interest is fixed-rate, when the contract says it is variable-rate. But for my case, what does "standard legal stuff" actually mean? I'd argue it is actually pretty standard for a Bay Area tech company. What does "don't worry about it" actually mean? If I asked the receptionist to explain more or "does this include a non-disparagement agreement?", I doubt they would have said anything.

For proof, I was in California, which is a two party consent jurisdiction for recording. So I could have pulled out my phone and said "I'd like your permission to record what you just told me about the contract. Can you please state your name, position at Company X, and what you just told me about it being all standard legal stuff?" If I was that receptionist, I'd probably call security.

Shouldn't this invalidate basically every software EULA/TOS?

In many jurisdictions much of the EULAs are unenforceable for this reason and others; they are effectively a set of false assertions about rights and prohibitions.

Most EULAs are basically meaningless in the USA. Once you have a legally acquired copy of the program the Copyright Act specifically and explicitly gives you the right to back it up and load it for execution. You don't need to be licensed a legal right you already have.

You can also print it off, cross out the shit you don't consent to, initial the changes, sign, and mail it certified to whatever their address of record is. I'm not a lawyer, but at that point my understanding is it's their job to say no we don't agree, just like it was your job to say no I don't agree.

California rental agreements are a particularly odious example. Liquidated damages (AKA late fees) are completely illegal in California. In fact it's illegal to even present a lease that has a LD clause to be signed! Sometimes I wish I were more into small claims swashbuckling, because I bet you could have a dozen small claims for various properties going against Equity Residential in any California city.

I've had the same thought about taking out predatory loans and then filing to have them canceled.

In my jurisdiction predatory loans are unenforceable.

How often do EULA/TOS type documents actually get tested in court?

I had a prof in university who was pretty sure majority of them wouldn't stand up to an actual legal case.

Many NDAs and non-competes wouldn't either.

The point isn't to lock you down, it's to try to lock you down, and to come off as intimidating or onerous.

> "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it."

Oh good so it's no big deal if we just skip it

Oh no, it's company policy you see. [Sign it, or else we'll sic our AI robot dogs onto your throat!!!] ;)

Oh yeah, it drives people crazy but I actually sit there and read the entirety of contracts I sign (though I not only read very fast but I'm also able to easily skim along where warranted). It took a bit longer than expected to buy a used car a few years back. In that case the car dealer seemed pretty impressed I was actually reading what I was signing. Most people respond to it like "uhhhhh..." hahaha

Like, honestly, I'm not going to subject myself to some legal encumbrance because of peer pressure. I got a bunch of pressure at a former employer where they wanted everyone to sign these new employment agreements and it took months because I wasn't getting sufficient answers to questions I had. I should have taken it as a warning sign of where they were headed based on how stuff proceeded there later on, but I was pretty young back then. :P

Yep. Got multiple eyerolls when I was checking in to a testing center for a certification when I actually stopped to read the full page of rules presented to me before I signed it.

Funny enough, they didn't even follow the rules themselves. The "end test" protocol was to raise your hand in the testing room and be escorted out, I sat there for a few minutes then just walked out myself and apparently that's what I was supposed to do.

What makes me upset is when kiosks and websites ask you to agree to terms and conditions, and while you’re reading them, the interface times out.

There’s zero intent from operators to allow their users to understand what they’re agreeing to. It’s all legalese written for their convenience.

I wonder if your example might actually be enough to render it unenforceable if you documented it.

> The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts.

But most of them aren't legally binding.

I've never understood why people care so much about these unenforceable non-competes. They want me to sign a contract that's inherently void? Sure, I'll do that all day (or if I'm feeling feisty I'll ask them for a small salary bump for the trouble - may as well take the free money right?). If they want me to witness them signing a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'll do that too.

Because they can kill people's careers.

I had a former employer sue a friend of mine, it wasn't legally enforceable but had to go for enough toncost enough in legal bills to make it so my friend lost his new, great, job that he had moved for. Just because it's not technically legally enforceable doesn't mean the company won't try to enforce it, and that trying has a real cost in terms of lawyers fees and also loss of employment.

Does negotiating to not have a non-compete agreement really reduce your risk of getting legal hassle from a disgruntled ex-employer that much? The way I see it even if you don't have a non-compete it's not really any harder for them to call up your new employer and go after you with a meritless lawsuit.

Yes it does. It won't even get to discovery. In this case the state accepted the case to go to discovery.

If a frivolous lawsuit caused loss of employment that seems grounds for damages, no? After all, there was clear financial harm.

Yes, it is, but after lots of time and law fees. Most people just choose to cut bait and move on.

It's an anti-pattern. People are pressed for time due to social pressure. The length of the documents adds to the stress, especially since it is full of legal jargon and looks like things you've seen before. Personally I think contracts need to be easily readable by laymen. Otherwise companies have an unfair advantage to tricking people. Isn't deception supposed to be illegal?

If you think that's bad, I've been to multiple medical practices where part of the "standard legal stuff" they want you to sign would have you give them the right to sell your private information and info about your visit to their partners for the purposes of advertising, etc.

those are larger groups likely owned by private equity investors

True private practices are definitely not doing that. they dont even have the financial incentive to make an investment for the legal advice add that statement, to their financial disclosure

I've been to practices belonging to single doctors where I've been asked to sign such waivers.

This is where you say the word GDPR (if you're in Europe). I've done it to some HR person and subsequently received a long email apology from the (very nervous) boss of the company the day after.

I'm unfortunately not in a country with good privacy laws, would love to be able to do that, though.

I wonder whether signing with finger-drawn “I don’t agree” would be a solution that satisfies all sides?

"the note just says 'i do what i want'"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com