|
This is bushamerica for you. Businesses are now free to include in the
contract a section where you sign away your free speech rights!!
http://www.wesh.com/news/3931117/detail.html
POSTED: 5:08 pm EST November 18, 2004
Homeowners say a Brevard County homebuilding company is bullying,
threatening and even suing homeowners for complaining about inferior
construction.
A NewsChannel 2 investigation -- part of our Building Homes: Building
Problems series -- found Mercedes Homes actually filed a lawsuit
against a woman for telling her neighbors about severe leaks in her
home.
Jay Ann Contardi couldn't imagine a problem any worse than the deluge
of rainwater pouring into her leaking home. That is, until she ran
afoul of the aggressive lawyers representing her builder, Mercedes
Homes.
"It has changed my life. I'm afraid to talk to my neighbors. I'm
afraid to walk my daughter to the bus stop. I'm afraid to talk to you
right now," she told NewsChannel 2 reporter Dan Billow.
She's not the only one. Other Mercedes homeowners asked us to protect
their identities.
"I feel like I'm in a police state. I can't do anything. I have no
avenues. I have nowhere to turn," one homeowner said.
That's what it feels like when you're sued for talking to your
neighbor.
In the company's plush corporate offices, executives hatched a plan to
make buyers sign away their First Amendment rights.
"It's there in black and white. The customer should read his or her
contract thoroughly before they enter into it," said Patrick Roche,
Mercedes Attorney.
When you buy a Mercedes home, the fine print says you can't complain
to your neighbors, call the news media or even carry a picket sign,
even if your new quarter-million dollar home leaks through the roof,
walls and windows.
(snip)
|
| |
| |
This is bushamerica for you. Businesses are now free to include in the
contract a section where you sign away your free speech rights!!
http://www.wesh.com/news/3931117/detail.html
Alas, this was equally true in clintonamerica. Many auto dealerships have
similar clauses in sales and lease contracts. As the article says, read your
sales contract carefully before buying, and if you don't agree with
something work out an amendment or just refuse to sign.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
This is bushamerica for you. Businesses are now free to include in the
contract a section where you sign away your free speech rights!!
http://www.wesh.com/news/3931117/detail.html
[...]
When you buy a Mercedes home, the fine print says you can't complain
to your neighbors, call the news media or even carry a picket sign,
even if your new quarter-million dollar home leaks through the roof,
walls and windows.
Well, they should have read the fine print but the courts in my experience
refuse to enforce such contractual clauses as being: 1) unconscionable
2)void as in violation of public policy 3) unreasonable forfeitures of
otherwise legitimate rights
When the restrictions go before a judge watch them fall like a house of
cards.
|
| |
| |
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
This is bushamerica for you. Businesses are now free to include in the
contract a section where you sign away your free speech rights!!
Such contracts are null and void.
No contract can entertain the notion that one may not discuss a problem with
anyone other than the contractor.
When heard, the judge should rule the action taken by the builder as
unconstitutional and thusly, through the damn assholes out of court.
Along with a court order to fix the problems at their expense. Immediately!
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon, then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of speech".
If the builders don't like it, tough #@($.
|
| |
| |
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon,
then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of speech".
It's amazing that so many people (including the OP) have no idea what this
right means. The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
your speech. It says nothing about terms in private contracts. For example,
in my line of work I frequently sign NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) that
forbid me from discussing certain topics. The provisions in these contracts
that restrict my freedom of speech are generally found to be valid and
enforceable, yet they do not violate my constitutional rights in any way. In
my brief reading of the article, I would guess that the terms in the
contract that prohibit discussion of problems with a neighbor are just as
enforceable as any other NDA.
In other words, if you signed the contract described in the article linked
by the OP and "tell your neighbors that the home I bought was a royal lemon"
the First Amendment protects you from any attempt by the government to
restrict that speech but the builder can sue you for violation of contract
and might well prevail in court.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
I hope you're right! I do think this kind of clause would have stopped
me but then i'm not in these buyer's shoes, maybe i'd have missed it
too. this kind of clause sure makes it look like the builder using it
almost plans on there being problems, and plans on not doing anything
about it. A good reason to run away fast from this kind of builder.
" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<UfLod.40498$jE2.12906@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
... courts in my experience
refuse to enforce such contractual clauses as being: 1) unconscionable
2)void as in violation of public policy 3) unreasonable forfeitures of
otherwise legitimate rights
When the restrictions go before a judge watch them fall like a house of
cards.
|
| |
| |
"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news@goulden.org> wrote in message news:<co0bes0281a@news4.newsguy.com>...
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon,
then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of speech".
It's amazing that so many people (including the OP) have no idea what this
right means. The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
your speech. It says nothing about terms in private contracts. For example,
in my line of work I frequently sign NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) that
forbid me from discussing certain topics. The provisions in these contracts
that restrict my freedom of speech are generally found to be valid and
enforceable, yet they do not violate my constitutional rights in any way. In
my brief reading of the article, I would guess that the terms in the
contract that prohibit discussion of problems with a neighbor are just as
enforceable as any other NDA.
In other words, if you signed the contract described in the article linked
by the OP and "tell your neighbors that the home I bought was a royal lemon"
the First Amendment protects you from any attempt by the government to
restrict that speech but the builder can sue you for violation of contract
and might well prevail in court.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."
That's what it says, but that's not how it's interpreted. It has been
extended to cover speech restrictions in general not just by the govt.
|
| |
| |
John D. Goulden wrote:
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon,
then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of
speech".
It's amazing that so many people (including the OP) have no idea what
this right means. The First Amendment prohibits the government from
restricting your speech. It says nothing about terms in private
contracts. For example, in my line of work I frequently sign NDAs
(non-disclosure agreements) that forbid me from discussing certain
topics. The provisions in these contracts that restrict my freedom of
speech are generally found to be valid and enforceable, yet they do not
violate my constitutional rights in any way. In my brief reading of the
article, I would guess that the terms in the contract that prohibit
discussion of problems with a neighbor are just as enforceable as any
other NDA.
In other words, if you signed the contract described in the article
linked by the OP and "tell your neighbors that the home I bought was a
royal lemon" the First Amendment protects you from any attempt by the
government to restrict that speech but the builder can sue you for
violation of contract and might well prevail in court.
Excuse me kind sir, but the "right to free speech" includes all forms of
speech regardless of to whom or to what it is directed.
A contract can not restrict that freedom of speech in any manner.
Just because it is stated in the contract, does not make the contract 100%
legal and binding.
The contractor in this case, has a legal obligation to meet in the form of
building codes.
If those codes were not met at the time of construction, he is liable for
failure to comply with those codes.
By forcing you to sign such a contract, he is hoping that you will not
disclose the mistakes he made so he can avoid prosecution and the ultimate
repair bills.
If I saw that statement in a contract, you can be damned sure I'd take it to
an attorney for a legal review.
When this case goes to court, I'll bet it gets thrown out on constitutional
issues and the contractor forced to make good on the repais.
|
| |
| |
xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message news:<780ea958.0411231932.4b8c6a40@posting.google.com>...
"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news@goulden.org> wrote in message news:<co0bes0281a@news4.newsguy.com>...
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon,
then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of speech".
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."
That's what it says, but that's not how it's interpreted. It has been
extended to cover speech restrictions in general not just by the govt.
Ok, you'll stand up for the first amendment, but not for the second?
What a hypocritical loser you are. Of course, that isn't much of a
news flash, is it?
|
| |
| |
On 24 Nov 2004 14:25:49 -0800,
Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com (David W. Poole, Jr.)
That's what it says, but that's not how it's interpreted. It has been
extended to cover speech restrictions in general not just by the govt.
Ok, you'll stand up for the first amendment, but not for the second?
What a hypocritical loser you are. Of course, that isn't much of a
news flash, is it?
it can't count that high
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known> wrote in message news:<vjmaq0pnq6f1tg6j2g2bv9v860idukiuvc@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 14:25:49 -0800,
Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com (David W. Poole, Jr.)
That's what it says, but that's not how it's interpreted. It has been
extended to cover speech restrictions in general not just by the govt.
it can't count that high
Thanks for pointing that out.
And I thought *I* had problems...... :-)
|
| |
| |
The failure here is not the bad contract that she signed but rather the
Local building codes. Why are they not enforced? If they are why are
they not adequate enogh to protect against this type of cut and run
builder?
In article <co1bmj06sv@news4.newsguy.com>, Richard <Anonymous@127.001>
wrote:
John D. Goulden wrote:
If I wish to tell my neighbors that the home I bought is a royal lemon,
then
that is guaranteed under the 1st amendment, "Right to freedom of
speech".
Excuse me kind sir, but the "right to free speech" includes all forms of
speech regardless of to whom or to what it is directed.
A contract can not restrict that freedom of speech in any manner.
Just because it is stated in the contract, does not make the contract 100%
legal and binding.
The contractor in this case, has a legal obligation to meet in the form of
building codes.
If those codes were not met at the time of construction, he is liable for
failure to comply with those codes.
By forcing you to sign such a contract, he is hoping that you will not
disclose the mistakes he made so he can avoid prosecution and the ultimate
repair bills.
If I saw that statement in a contract, you can be damned sure I'd take it to
an attorney for a legal review.
When this case goes to court, I'll bet it gets thrown out on constitutional
issues and the contractor forced to make good on the repais.
|
| |
| |
Building codes aren't consistently enforced. One area, or one
builder, may have very different enforcement on it than another. Many
code depts have sovereign immunity, even fining the home buyers
instead of the builder sometimes, for missed violations. An
acquaintance of mine had to go to court to get out of paying tens of
thousands of dollars in fines from his city, for builder errors on a
brand new house. The city I live in has told home owners that they
would cite and fine them if they complained about missed violations.
There are hundreds of homes in my city, maybe thousands, that are
missing code required materials. A person cannot depend on code
enforcement unfortunately.
Illiterati <Illiterati@damnneocons.org> wrote in message news:<251120042106341253%Illiterati@damnneocons.org>...
The failure here is not the bad contract that she signed but rather the
Local building codes. Why are they not enforced? If they are why are
they not adequate enogh to protect against this type of cut and run
builder?
|
| |
| |
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
This is bushamerica for you. Businesses are now free to include in the
contract a section where you sign away your free speech rights!!
That's what it feels like when you're sued for talking to your
neighbor.
In the company's plush corporate offices, executives hatched a plan to
make buyers sign away their First Amendment rights.
"It's there in black and white. The customer should read his or her
contract thoroughly before they enter into it," said Patrick Roche,
Mercedes Attorney.
When you buy a Mercedes home, the fine print says you can't complain
to your neighbors, call the news media or even carry a picket sign,
even if your new quarter-million dollar home leaks through the roof,
walls and windows.
Tbis sort of provision is similar to the provision in Microsoft's EULA
for SQL Server and Oracle's database software which prohibits giving out
information on performance or releasing information about benchmarks
without consent of the software vendor.
Such provisions, in effect, would allow a company to silence legitimate
discussion of important information related to its operation or
performance. Such provisions are usually considered unconscionable and
against public policy, as they are a disservice to the public, and deny
it the right to discover from those who are aware of it, the performance
of merchants and the quality of their work.
|
| |
| |
|
