This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

You press ‘Agree’, you lost the right to sue the company.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Show me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying “prove me wrong”.

      Why don’t you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I’m not entertaining it.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.

        • ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Obviously I can’t possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.

          And that DOES make sense.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Right, but if they’re not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn’t fall under their tos, because they don’t own it.

            • ZMonster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The restaurant isn’t suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

              When you are ready to move on, go for it.

              • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                So they’re doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.