I’m talking about small print. We all know it means “here’s where we screw you, but we’re legally obligated to tell you how we do it, so we make the print real small so we can screw you and get away with it.” Who the hell started this nonsense, and why is it acceptable?
If I demand a contract in legible type all the way through is the other party obligated to provide it? ie: credit card, cell phone contract.
People are used to being fucked in the ass by businesses. As long as you give the customer a reach-around once in a while, they’ll put up with just about anything.
Well you don’t have a choice other than to forego such services. You don’t need a credit card or cell phone. They’re nice but people get along without them.
I always ask myself, “Can I live with this?” If the answer is yes, I live with it. If it’s no, I do without it.
Remember forewarned is forearmed
It’s not fine print, but does everyone read the entire package they sign for a mortgage? That is very important but almost nobody is going to sit there and read 15+ pages.
Often the problem is that you have no choice in regards to the language. If you want the product/ service, you have to agree to the terms.
I don’t know of any rule that requires a company to provide the information in a larger font if requested, but there might be. It never hurts to ask. But your assumption that everything in fine print is stuff designed to screw people over is a bit over the top.
My first will was rather unusual. I took the will that the lawyer handed to me, and retyped it. The boilerplate said child(ren) and it also referred to any children I might bear or adopt in the future. I had had one child, and had a tubal, and I didn’t want any more kids. I told the lawyer that if I lost my mind and DID adopt, that I’d go ahead and make a new will when I was doing the other paperwork, but that I wanted to make sure that there was no confusion in that will. He didn’t roll his eyes at me, but I could tell that he wanted to.
The second time I had a will made out, the lawyer was more accommodating, and I was able to get the language to specify that I had one child, and that’s the only one who I was leaving stuff to.
You can demand just about anything you want in a contract.
It takes two to contract.
Of course the other party may not accept your demands, then you’re left with no contract ever coming into force.
If one is worried that a given business relationship might expose one to significant risk/cost, one would probably do well to spend a commensurately significant amount of time reviewing the proposed terms for the relationship.
The other thing here is that small print is not only or mainly used to deceive. It’s used as well to reduce a 40 page document to less than novella size. There are a lot of provisions to cover every imaginable (if improbable or trivial) aspect or permutation that might arise in a contract. If I’m a bank with 10 million customers, you better believe my lawyers, if they’re any good, will demand I have a clause in my customer agreement detailing what the bank’s/customer’s rights or obligations are in the event, say, a tornado explodes the safe deposit box, or a riot breaks out and the Detroit branch is closed for three days (law of large numbers says that over 10 million customers and years of running the bank, one of these black swan events will take place). Most consumers, though, don’t want to read paragraph after paragraph of that mundane legalese, so they condense it to make it look less legally-excessive.
A side issue is the small print that appears in TV ads and which is impossible to read (assuming you could make it out at all) in the time it appears on screen.
Should be illegal.
As my Contracts professor once said, nothing prevents you from lining out any objectionable provision in the small print, and seeing what the representative from MegaCorp will do. He claimed to have done it successfully on numerous occasions.
The provisions I usually find objectionable are the ones in a consumer context/contract of adhesion that require mandatory arbitration for settling any claims.
I hate that. A lot of times you’ll see things like [sub]4 easy payments of[/sub] $19[sup]⁹⁹[/sup].
If they’re not trying to mislead (and by that I mean be spineless lying wastes of flesh that need bullets in the brain) to you about the price why would they present it to you in such a manor? Assuming they want to present an honest cost why wouldn’t they use the same text size? If they’re not trying to present an honest cost than why isn’t this considered a deceptive market practice and punished (preferably with a cheese grater to the balls darwin award)?
You see that a lot. Big grand wowzer claim [sub](small print that negates most of the claim, and gives them right to demand a blow job from your mother)[/sub].
The reason that banking contracts, credit agreements, etc. are written in confusing legalese, is that the banking industry WANTS to confuse you. It is to their advantage that you do not understand the terms and conditions…the better to sock you with interest and fees.
And, the banks have always fought any moves to make the terms and conditions written in plain english. That is why they spend millions on lobbyists, and wining/dining the members of Congress (so as to get what they want).
This is perfectly legal, but it also is evidence that your members of congress do not have your best interests at heart-they work for the people who give them campaign “contributions” (bribes).
You don’t count (except at election time).
Sometimes there are rules.
The State of New York (probably the insurance regulatory body) has requirements that limit the size of fonts that can be used in insurance contracts (minimum of 8 points, as I remember).
Because NY is such a big market, that rule is often observed in other states, too. I once worked for Prudential, and the contracts & notice letters we were designing for use nationwide all abided with the NY state limits, because we didn’t want to have multiple versions of them.
Since this is GQ, please provide proof of your allegation – not of an occasional crooked operation, but of the “industry” wanting to confuse its clients.
While you are at it, also please explain why mortgagees often insist on mortgagors having independent legal advice before executing a contract.
Simple answer to “why the fine print?” Smaller print permits more text to be put on fewer pages.
When faced with fine print, I put on glasses.
The other day I went to update some apps in my iPhone and was presented with a message saying “The iTunes store terms and conditions have changed…”
When I clicked the button, I was shown a screen full of text. I then scrolled on down to the bottom, looking for the “I Agree” button and was surprised to see this at the end of the first very long screenful:
“Page 1 of 57”
You mean someone is going to read fifty seven pages of very deep legalese, scrolling on and on through each one, before clicking “I Agree” ?
I can only imagine what they might have buried on page 42.
These kinds of things should be illegal. Only 3 people in a thousand probably reads all of them, and they still need a lawyer to understand the implications of the fine print.
Could one conceivably complain about the small print on a contract under the Americans with Disability Act?
The answer to life, the universe and everything? 
I doubt it since you could ask for a large-print version before you signed it, if you sign it knowing you can’t read it without raising issue I can’t see how you would have a legal leg to stand on.
As has been said before the fine-print is fine because otherwise it would go on for page after page. I don’t think consumers really have much to complain about since when the print is perfectly legible we still don’t read it. How many of us actually read the agreement when installing software before we tick the box to accept? Less than 0.1% I would imagine.
It makes me laugh when it has to read out on the radio during a commercial!
I guess the alternative is to do what some companies do and just something along the lines of 'Full terms and conditions available on request (or from website).
Information is a powerful tool in the hands of consumers, a tool that most businesses would rather you didn’t have on your side when dealing with them. Some information (such as side effects, warnings, disclaimers, etc) is legally advised and/or mandated, however, so they make it as inconspicuous and unnoticeable as legally possible.
What’s worse than fine print in my mind is this:
Not only are they obscuring the fact that the price of this widget is $80 instead of the $20 you might guess upon first glance – They are obscuring the fact that the payment is $20 and making dense people think the price is “nineteen something something”.
And the worst of all is misrepresenting the price of the product until the moment of purchase:
Price tag: $99
Customer: Sounds like a deal! I’ll buy it!
Salesman: Let’s see… $99 for the widget, $30 deposit on the necessary widget use device (which we lease you for $10 dollars a month starting now), $8 packaging fee, $10 widget extraction fee, $5 service charge, $5 transportation fee… and taxes. That will be $198.50 please.
Customer: ?
Why do we put up with shit like that? I’m not going to mince words, I think that it is outright lying to put a $99 price tag on an item you charge $200 for. Can’t you add up everything you charge and put the actual price on the sticker/ad/rack/whatever?
Worse still are the shrinkwrap contracts that can only be read after purchasing the product. They should be (and maybe even are) unenforceable.