It’s unfair that companies, who have extremely high power in the relationship, can load their contracts up with one-sided and often unenforceable stuff. Employees, who are the party with low power, must accept the terms or GTFO. Then the onus is on them to spend their time and money fighting the legal battle to invalidate these unenforceable bits.
Wouldn’t it be fairer if the party with all the power, and who dictates the content of the contract, must convince a judge that it’s enforceable before a defendant has to lift a finger or shell out money?
Currently contracts seem to be nothing more than one-sided weapons that powerful companies use to get vulnerable people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t and can’t afford to fight. Let’s not pretend that more than a small fraction of employees out there actually get to meaningfully alter the contracts under which they work.
Wouldn’t it be fairer if the party with all the power, and who dictates the content of the contract, must convince a judge that it’s enforceable before a defendant has to lift a finger or shell out money?
Currently contracts seem to be nothing more than one-sided weapons that powerful companies use to get vulnerable people to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t and can’t afford to fight. Let’s not pretend that more than a small fraction of employees out there actually get to meaningfully alter the contracts under which they work.