Kyyle23 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 http://kdvr.com/2013/11/29/couple-fined-35...e-may-be-legal/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 29, 2013 -> 11:38 AM) http://kdvr.com/2013/11/29/couple-fined-35...e-may-be-legal/ I highly doubt that clause would hold up in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 “Your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively prohibits KlearGear.com.” "John Palmer bought a few Christmas gifts for his wife Jen on the website KlearGear.com in 2008, and he never imagined he’s still be paying the price for it five years later, CNN’s Pamela Brown reports. The Palmers say the items they ordered never arrived and the transaction was cancelled." Since the order was cancelled and no products or money was exchanged then there was no contract now was there? So this is a punishment on the consumer for voicing their displeasure ( free speech anyone?) because kleargear FAILED to uphold their end of the agreement in the first place! I'm so glad I don't participate any more in the corporate holiday that Xmas has become. I buy no gifts, i receive no gifts and could not be happier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitewashed in '05 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 If a consumer cannot write a negative review for their negative experience, this opens the doors for people getting ripped off left and right online. I guess the only thing people can do is refrain from shopping on web sites that are known to do these types of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 I don't know who their "legal experts" are, but that is the most ridiculous clause I've ever seen in a sales contract and there isn't a chance in hell a judge would uphold that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingandalongonetoleft Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Once this is in court, hopefully the focus isn't on whether or not the terms of this contract are applicable since the sale didn't go through, and instead on the absurdity of such details being included in the contract to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 I bet the fact that this is now on the news has brought more negative reaction than any online review could have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingandalongonetoleft Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 ^The letter notifying the news of a credit score hit and $3000 owed probably won't get there until Monday because of the shortened week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) I don't know who their "legal experts" are, but that is the most ridiculous clause I've ever seen in a sales contract and there isn't a chance in hell a judge would uphold that. Not just that, but by all appearances, that clause wasn't even in the original contract when these people bought their stuff. It was added later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 30, 2013 -> 08:43 AM) Not just that, but by all appearances, that clause wasn't even in the original contract when these people bought their stuff. It was added later. Yeah, I saw that too... The fact that the headline says "legal experts sayit may be legal" cracked me up...not only do the courts frown on these types of contracts where the consumer has no choice but to accept the terms if he/she wished to make a purchase, but the courts also dismiss such vague, all-encompassing language. Seriously, you are prohibited from doing ANYTHING which may negatively impact the company? Nonsense. Edited November 30, 2013 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.