Adhesion contract (n.) --

Adhesion Contract (n.) -- A standard-form contract prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position, usu. a consumer, who adheres to the contract with little choice about the terms. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).

Being an all-around bully-hater, I thought this site was pretty amusing. I breathlessly await my kid's activation code. I also confess to a bias against microsoft as I especially loathe their annoying self- and cross-promotion in every product issued (for the love of God, leave me alone MSN Messenger! Get your corporate detritus off of my screen!)

So the site also tickled my interest as i have been forced to imbibe entirely too much economics in the law recently and need some mental ipecac to get it out of my system. For a particularly enraging opinion (in a dry, law-talkin' guy, sort-of-way), see Hill v. Gateway 2000. In that case, a couple ordered a Gateway computer (i'm a dell person myself) over the phone with a credit card. Like any other electronics or software you've purchase, a bunch of papers with terms and conditions in miniscule font that no one ever looks at came with it.* Those papers set out terms and conditions that said the couple was bound by the terms unless they returned the computer within 30 days (paying shipping, of course). When their computer broke a few months later, Gateway wouldn't repair it, and they sued. Gateway said, "ha ha! (nelson munce-style), now's the time to take a good look at those tiny terms on the papers in the box. You have no right to sue us, you toothless hicks (i paraphrase, of course)! You gave up your right to sue in that tiny-fonted insert. You've won a trip to arbitration!"**

The court said that there was no sale when the couple called Gateway and forked over their credit card number after which gateway agreed to ship their white elephant. Nope, gateway shipped the computer (which, i would think, your average person would assume he has already purchased) with an "accept-or-return offer" to sell the computer. The sale wasn't made until the couple didn't return the computer within 30 days (the only way to avoid the arbitration terms). It didn't matter that the supposed offer wasn't explained in any meaningful way or within a reasonable period of time.

This is so law schooly, I should be ashamed of myself, but i can't help it: One author noted that the case is particularly astonishing, because it revives "the principle that dominant contracting parties can use standard forms and manipulate the mode of agreement to bind their customers without meaningful assent, notice, or opportunity to pursue other terms. It transforms the normal into the unexpected--giving a credit card number on the phone is not really a sale. Then the unexpected becomes normal; more and more, companies like Gateway can dictate the terms on which their products are purchased and used with only the barest illusion of consent. As [a law professor explained] explained, under Hill, 'misrepresentation is the oil that lubricates capitalism.'"

And now, for an awkward transition, riddle me this,

Q: when can a credit card company charge you 28.49%, the highest possible rate?
A: when the cardholder is late making a payment to any creditor, including phone and utility bills and car payments. this can happen even if the cardholder paid the credit card company on time.

You know all that stuff that comes with your credit card statement every month? wouldn't you like to know what you agreed to in those tiny terms? Check out a really comprehensive overview from frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/



*the papers stated that they were bound by the terms unless they returned the electronic doodad within 30 days, paying for the shipping themselves. Did you even get to these tiny terms? do you know where all those pieces of paper that came in the box for grand theft auto: vice city that you bought awhile back? how about for your iMac?

**arbitration is a topic of venting for another day, but the first question i always ask myself as a consumer is "why is industry x, or industry in general so keen to do y?" generally, the answer has nothing to do with benefits for their employees or consumers, although that won't stop them from framing it that way. wouldn't you be suspicious if your opponent picked the judge hearing your case who happened rely on your opponent for more business.