They say you should always read the fine print, but is that really a good idea? If you don't actually have a choice in the matter, perhaps it's better to just save yourself the aggravation.
Variations on the old shrinkwrap idea seem to be everywhere you look these days. A reader recently received his IBM/Lotus certification welcome kit in the mail. On a label on the outside of the envelope he noticed the following:
"Use of this Certification Welcome Kit is subject to the terms and conditions of the IBM certification Agreement included in this package. You should not open this envelope unless you have read the Agreement, in full, and have accepted those terms. By breaking the seal on this envelope, you signify that you have read the Agreement and that you accept those terms. If you do not wish to be bound bythe Agreement, please promptly return the Certification Welcome Kit, with the seal unbroken, to Lotus software at the address on the envelope. Please note that in the event that you do not accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not authorized to use the applicable IBM logo or mark."
That seems like a funny way to enter into a supposedly legal contract. "Is that a gotcha or what?" he wrote. "How can I agree to something which I can't read until I break the seal, which then tells them I agree. Also, there is no address on the envelope to send it back to. Does that make the agreement null and void, since they did not fulfill their end of the agreement?
Good question. The small print in a very different place caused another reader to raise some concerns. "Have you ever looked at the disclaimers at the end of all those 'investor alert' spams that tout penny stocks?" she wrote. "It's pretty interesting, actually. At first, they sound just like the typical press release disclaimer; i.e., the e-mail contains forward-looking statements, etc. If you keep reading, however, they disclose that the company they're advising you to invest in -- not to be construed as investment advice, naturally -- may not have said what the 'newsletter' writer claims it said. Oh, and the spammers were paid by a third party to send the newsletter and have shares of the penny stock themselves that they can sell at any time. It's amazing. So is it really OK to just outright lie to people as long as you disclose in the fine print that you're lying?"
And, if not, why do the spammers bother? That's always been a puzzle when I see these types of disclaimers on fraudulent spam. Surely the spammers are relying on lack of enforcement of the computer fraud laws rather than the fine print to keep them out of jail, so why don't they just stick with the unadulterated lie?
Sometimes the small print is actually rather large. "I thought I had seen and heard every sneaky trick companies use to abuse the public, but I saw something totally new today on the road," another reader recently wrote. "I was traveling behind one of those big gravel trucks -- the ones that never seem to have a tarp covering up the gravel so it rains down on all the poor souls who are in its general vicinity. On the back of the truck was a large message: 'Not responsible for damage caused while following truck.' This is a nice trick. I could sell bumper stickers to put on your front bumper: 'Not responsible for damage caused to anyone who gets in my way.' I wonder if the trucking company truly believes that driving in traffic forms a binding contract?"
Read and post comments about this story here.
12:17:38 PM 
|
|
