Hacker News Reader

Comment by aroman | Hacker News Reader

Is there even a reasonable situation where a one-sided "forbearance agreement" is ever appropriate? Or even remotely fair? That seems like basically writing up a contract that says "By signing this you owe me $100" but entrenching and obfuscating it in 75 pages of legalese.

View on HN

An acquaintance told me a story where a neighbour in his condominium complex (who lived directly under him) asked for a right of first refusal for nothing in return if/when she eventually put her unit on the market...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal

If the right of first refusal only applies to the asking price, there isn't much downside except if the market is hot and/or you have a highly sought-after place where multiple bidders push the price above the asking price. If that's not the case, set the asking price at an amount you're confident the market won't pay, and the psychological pressure of the neighbor having wanted right of first refusal might make them buy at your inflated price.

Did they intend for it to be a formal contract?

I feel that for every major, an introduction to business/contract law unit should be undertaken if only to educate people on the formal rules that surround the contracts everyone enters in to during their lives.

I heard this used as an example against the legal uselessness of disclaimers on emails - they can't force you into a contract without your consent, and to be clearer, the example was given: "By reading this you agree to pay me $100 immediately"....

That wouldn't be a valid contract for several reasons. What's the consideration, acceptance?

Sure, that's the point of the example. Phrased that way, this kind of contract is clearly one-sided and unenforceable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com