Hacker News Reader

    I fully intend to walk into the office, hand them
    the key, and point out that I never signed the
    document and will fight any attempts to charge me
    the next three months worth of rent.

I hate to break it to you, but that contract is enforceable. Pretending for a moment that this is something that would ever make it to court, you would be found in breach.

In reality, what will happen is this: You'll refuse to pay. They'll casually send your account to collections. You'll get some phone calls from a collection agency and it will hurt your credit report. Ultimately, you'll pay them to protect your credit score.

> I hate to break it to you, but that contract is enforceable.

Please explain. How can they enforce a contract he never signed?

Contracts don't require signatures. Verbal contracts are enforceable outside of certain odd cases (for instance buying a house). They mainly get signatures to exactly qualify what was agreed and to make sure you don't claim you didn't agree.

I am not sure if this would fall under rental law, which I would assume requires a signature.

But he/she never specified they verbally agreed. In fact it seems that he/she made it pretty clear to the lesser that they didn't know if they agreed.

Payment in this case constitutes agreement.

Agreement to hire, yes. But agreement to anything which might be in the contract not necessarily. This is beyond my legal knowledge.

If he had not read the agreement it would be difficult to hold him to it, however once he had read it continued payments are him affirming the contents of the contract.

Now whether it is worth the effort to fight his logic is another matter entirely.

Perhaps because he carefully read the contract, provided payment knowing the contract terms, specifically conspired to violate said terms, and then posted the whole story to the internet might qualify? There's a concept of "good faith" in the law. This is just vile, sorry. If you don't like the terms you have an obligation not to buy the service.

I wasn't aware of the 90-day policy until after I had already bought the service, FWIW.

Wouldn't the right thing to do be this: Go back the next day and say that you don't accept these terms and demand a refund of any payment made?

I would assume that the continued use of said storage unit makes acceptance of contract implicit.

If you'd taken the contract home and _not_ read it, you would probably be more in the clear. Since you read it and knew about the 90 day rule and continued to pay, it could be argued that you had an agreement. This is why we sign contracts instead of other forms of agreements; there is less ambiguity.

Good luck to you, sir.

Uh...no. He agreed to pay $X a month to storage goods at the facility. He never agreed to the rest of the terms, which he would have indicated by signing the contract. The business indicated assent by not requiring him to sign the contract to receive his storage unit. Thus, under the basic principles of U.S. contract law...a very basic contract exists, and none of the extra stuff in the written document is part of it.

Buying the service doesn't legally enter him into the additional contract.

Signing the contract does that, and that's why he was asked (half-assedly) to do that. If anyone is liable for damages due to failing to properly conduct the company's business, it's our Facebook surfing friend at the counter.

That's entirely backwards, sorry. A "contract" is just an agreement. The signature is just a piece of paper that can prove the agreement was reached. Courts enforce "implied" and "verbal" contracts all the time, and in fact signed contracts are routinely voided for technical reasons too.

The poster above read and understood the contract, and continued to pay the vendor with that understanding in mind. That is absolutely a legally enforceable contract. And in fact the post above is blindingly obvious proof of a bad faith intent to violate the contract. Sorry, there's no leg to stand on here. That's just not the way the law works.

I wouldn't be surprised that Facebook guy behind the counter was stupid enough to forge the signature.

For his sake I hope not. If he did he could end up in prison if this was brought to trial (if a first tim eoffender he would probably just get a fine). Forging signatures is really bad, never do it.

Unless you're one of the asshats at Prenda Law:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/identity-theft-la...

Debt collectors in the UK do this as a matter of course. If you ever get one on your case, your solicitor will suggest that you print your name or write an X rather than use your signature or it'll come up on another document agreeing to piles of additional charges later on.

Presumably if this did go to court he would just tell the court he had neither seen nor signed any contract, and dare them to forge one, which they might do if they had any examples of his signature.

I can't get over the 90 days notice thing. For storage, that is ridiculous. It's not like they're going to start running ads in the paper for "Unit J-14, a 5x8 walkup". I've rented numerous storage units in numerous states, and I've never been charged more than the last complete month. (So OK, maybe I've been screwed out of 29 days, but I understand they don't want to mess with billing cycles or proration.) Also, I've never gone into a storage place and found any size I wanted unavailable. These places don't want to leave money on the table, so if they start filling up they either raise prices or build more units. If you never fill up, 90 days notice is ridiculous.

> he would just tell the court he had neither seen nor signed any contract

If he claimed he didn't see the contract, he would be committing perjury. They wouldn't bother to forge his signature because even if both parties legitimately forget the story about the fax machine, the court would likely still find the contract enforceable.

At absolute minimum, they'd have an oral contract. However, that oral contract is probably "You pay, and we'll both abide by the terms of my standard contract."

Now, that's not to say that the court will find the 90 day clause enforceable. The court may decide to enforce the contract as limited by industry norms, which may be 30 days. I don't know, but he certainly won't get away with paying nothing.

I should probably add, IANAL, but I'm also not just making this shit up.

I should've been a bit more specific. I fully expect to pay for the last month (and I'm okay with that). The 90 day thing is a bit too much though, IMO.

If he didn't sign it, then he didn't agree to the 90 day clause. If they charged him, then he has the right to use the space for a month - no more, no less. But, they could lock him out at the end of the month and not auto renew the 30 day lease.

Contracts exist to protect both parties.

Now, that being said - this would be a small claims issue and it probably isn't worth dealing with for $120.

I hate to break it to you Brandon, but you're wrong. He never signed the contract requiring 90 days notice. In fact, he didn't sign any contract, so only the most minimal terms are part of the de facto contract that exists between the OP and the storage facility. Generally, that means the right to store stuff for a month, renewed each month at the option of the renter. This is basic contract law in America, especially as it applies between businesses and consumers.

Also--what you've suggested regarding collections is illegal. Ultimately, the storage facility would end up paying the OP significant damages and legal fees--after paying to clean up any economic harm they cause to his credit, and any economic harm he suffered as a result of such credit score damage.

Wouldn't using the service knowing that you don't have a contract be fraud?

I don't know how things work in your country, but in mine in the abscence of a written agreement the oral agreement becomes binding. Since you told the clerk that you would take the document home to sign and then never contested it afterwards even while paying for the service, a judge could find that you implicitly agreed to all of its terms through oral agreement.

That sounds pretty shaky, there was no implicit agreement to sign under any circumstances. There's also the fact he took it away with him under the proviso that he's going to study it first, and then fax back the signed agreement.

The very fact that he did not fax back the agreement would be a pretty difficult argument to counter.

No, the fact that he started paying is a pretty difficult argument to counter. I think, in general, if two people negotiate on given terms and then start acting as if they had agreement (guy gives him the storage locker, OP starts paying for it) that's pretty good evidence of the contract existing. As far as I understand, this often overcomes some kind of technical problem with the instrument in question. (For example in this case the lack of a signature, only oral agreement.)

If it weren't this way, then mutual misunderstanding (for example the actual contract two parties signed is simply flawed or doesn't state what they think it states) would preempt the terms the parties agreed to; moreover, it would mean that you could totally distort the reality of what the parties actually started doing (how they behaved) by narrowly technically reading the paper instead of the agreement.

I also think this is the source of common-law marriage: if two people act as if they're married, that's good enough after a while, even if the actual instrument is missing or flawed in some way.

Not just oral agreement, but also payment is binding. By giving cc number and taking the keys he showed clear intention to use the storage.

Somewhat off-topic, but this thread is a perfect example of how much Hacker News would benefit from some legal expertise to match its technical expertise - although usually the discussions that veer into law involve copyright or other IP, in this case as in those, it would be interesting and useful to get some kind of consensus, perhaps not definitively predicting the outcome of a court case, but definitively explaining what factors a court would take into account and the relevant standards, which I suspect would be easy for a lawyer with some relevant expertise to recall. Instead, this thread is full of short, conflicting opinions, with little to indicate who might be right. I am not sure there is any reason to believe this can be improved, but it's unfortunate for a forum that prides itself on high-level discussion.

Speaking from personal experience doing similar things, that's really manipulative behavior on your part. How do you think the people working at the company will feel when you give them zero days notice and they realize they've been screwed over just because somebody forgot to check up on the paperwork?

If I was in your situation now, I would walk in there today and announce my intention to move out so at least they have some notice. I might mention that I never signed the document because I wasn't comfortable with the terms, and see if they'll let it go. Worst case loss is about $100.

Them's the breaks. Companies give you no sympathy if you happen to overlook some rules, why would you want to give any to them?

That's not entirely true. I release 2 people from contracts they had signed just this month, even though their notice was far short of 30 days. I've worked at several companies that will give refunds to customers even when we don't need to.

More importantly, I don't accept that other people treating you badly is reason enough to treat them badly. Not being able to give proper notice is one thing - purposefully withholding notice out of spite stemming from their terms of service.

It's not about sympathy, it's about not being manipulative, which is its own reward.

Handing someone a contract with unfavorable terms and encouraging them to sign it without reading isn't manipulative?

Why would you let someone else's poor moral standards lower your own?

Do you just let everyone walk all over you? How's that working out?

To hell with that -- they'd happily screw me out of three months of rent, why should I feel bad for managing to not let them do that?

Exactly.

If I hadn't read the document (they clearly expected that I wouldn't and were quite surprised and perturbed when I did), they would have had absolutely no problem taking $138 from me for a service I wasn't using (the last 90 days).

Why should I feel bad for managing to keep $92 of my own money!? If I walked in on the last day and then they told me I signed the contract and was on the hook for the last 90 days of rent, do you honestly expect that I could simply say "oh, wow, I didn't realize that" and they'd let me out of it.

Please. It would have been "sorry, should've read the contract!"

You broke your word to the employee. You promised him you would fax him the contract with your signature. You've known for one or two years that this day would come and that the required notification was 90 days. You decided to stay with the company for well over 90 days, so with a little bit of advance planning you could have met their draconian requirements. Now because of a technicality - you neglected to fax them and they forgot to collect your signature - you might be legally able to get out of it.

Yes, you'd save $92, but in terms of your own life, getting out of it is worse for you than it is for them. If you go around the world not trusting and manipulating people, you experience the world as an untrustworthy and manipulative place. You will never be close friends with somebody that you cannot manipulate, and you'll never be close friends with somebody that you can really truly trust. These things might not matter to you until you're in a really bad situation, but by then it will be too late.

Look, I've done lots of things like this. I've put people into jams that they simply couldn't get out of with no visible harm done to me in the eyes of anybody else. Being manipulative gives you power and control and money, but not being manipulative gives you personal integrity. At this point in my life I would easily pay $92 for my personal integrity.

The right thing to do in this situation if you really felt like 90 days was walking all over you would be to take back the contract the very next day and either agree on 30 days or get your money back, possibly with a chargeback from your credit card. The second best right thing would be to give them 90 days notice. The third best right thing would be to go and talk to them right away. When I say "right thing" I mean "thing that is not somehow taking advantage of the situation". It's not about the money, it's not about the other party's behavior, it's about the kind of person you want to be.

You're creating a false choice. You can have trusting relationships with family and friends and still be shrewd when it comes to business. By all means trust your loved ones. When it comes to business arrangements, stick with exactly what was written down on paper and agreed to by both parties. If this were a situation based on personal trust, they wouldn't have you signing a contract in the first place.

Perhaps, but it would also be hypocritical, and hypocrisy is the opposite of integrity. A lack of integrity by definition affects all areas of one's life. What happens when down the road you get involved in a business deal with a friend or family member? But, go ahead and substitute "close business partners" for "close friends" in my comment if you insist that the personal and professional spheres of one's life are completely separable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

Also, the premise of "stick with exactly what was written down on paper and agreed to by both parties", while valuable in conflict situations where you've entered into a contract in good faith, is manipulative letter-of-the-law legal wrangling when the usual negotiation process has been abused to get out of signing something and the other party isn't even aware that you have different beliefs about the terms you've agreed upon.

Why don't you strike out 90 number on their contract and put 14 for example, sign it and fax THAT back? I'm pretty sure they are not going to read the contract but simply file it somewhere....

Because you're better than that.

I'll pay them for the last month but I think 90 days is unreasonable. I honestly probably wouldn't have rented the unit if I knew that was the case but that's my own fault -- just like it's their fault they didn't make sure I signed the agreement.

If you edited the contract, initialed all your changes, and faxed it back, they probably wouldn't have looked at it long enough to notice.

Following your argument they would be allowed to take all your stuff and sell it on ebay because you didn't sign anything.

What applies is their standard rules, whether you signed them or not.

In fact, because you didn't return the signed document clearly shows carelessness or malice on your side and will play against you.

I'm curious how this works out for you. A follow up comment would be interesting to read.

Why don't you strike out 90 number on their contract and put 14 for example, sign it and fax THAT back? I'm pretty sure they are not going to read the contract but simply file it somewhere....

Fax isn't an acronym.

I'm aware of that; it's a subconscious habit. Did you have something useful to contribute?

When I do, I fully intend to walk into the office, hand them the key, and point out that I never signed the document and will fight any attempts to charge me the next three months worth of rent.

Let's rephrase that:

You fully intend to tell them that you made use of their property without their permission and without compensation, and will attempt to fight any attempts to hold you accountable for what is, at the very least, repeated trespassing.

Yes, that's going to end wonderfully for you. However, there is a chance you'll get an audience -- a captive one, even -- for your interesting legal and moral theories.

> you made use of their property without their permission and without compensation

Actually, they gave me a key and they automatically charge me $46/mo. Did you miss that part?

> repeated trespassing

Except that I have a key that they gave me and they haven't attempted to stop me from entering the premises.

Geez, at least read what I wrote before criticizing me.

> you made use of their property without their permission and without compensation

He did pay them for he service, he just didn't agree to the terms and conditions pertaining to 90 days notice.

It probably wouldn't hold in court under grounds that once he became aware of the 90 day notice requirement and yet continued to pay for service he had implicitly agreed.