very true. anyone can take a peice of paper, write something on it, and get your signature.
doesn't mean it is legally binding in any way shape or form.
would never stand up in court.
Petsmart Contract
- Thread starter Hoyo12
- Start date
very true. anyone can take a peice of paper, write something on it, and get your signature.
doesn't mean it is legally binding in any way shape or form.
would never stand up in court.
bullwinkle;3621397; said:It has to be more of a pledge than anything else.
Like someone else said, there have been stranger suits filed. But I sort of meant "cover one's ass" in a broader sense. I sincerely doubt this "contract" is legally binding in any way.
Signing a contract will maybe, just maybe keep that customer from coming back to the store and pitching a fit (or calling corporate to complain) after their monster eats the heater or cracks the glass or tears up the other fish in the aquarium etc etc. This document might also give people pause if they are considering dumping the monster fish back at the store once it has grown too big.
Probably not, but what's the harm in trying? If it doesn't work one bit, who cares; it took two seconds for the customer to sign and cost a fraction of a cent for petsmart to print out the sheet of paper or whatever. *shrug*
I agree with everything that you said, except for this: "I sincerely doubt this "contract" is legally binding in any way.
" In a court of law, it is a legally-binding contract. The funny thing about it is that Petsmart probably softens the bluntness of the document by calling it an "Agreement" rather than a "Contract." From a legal perspective, they are one in the same.
I don't know if it would ever come to this, but if it did, Why do you guys think this document would not stand up in court?
~ocean;3621563; said:
Ya, I would too.
Petsmart requires signing a contract when adopting dogs or cats from them. It could be that this area Petsmart(s) may have also applied this to large fish that most can't home.
The adoption contract is more a promise then anything, but honorable persons keep this promise and probably would have done the right thing anyhow. This "contract" could also be part of the education process.
Seems with many here opinion is, if it comes from Petsmart it must be evil
this page has some useful info about legally binding contracts (this is for Canada though):
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~bovaird/c19/10b-contracts.htm
it is interesting to note that contracts do NOT have to be in writing, so our store informing customers was just as good
and also, some contracts by their nature are not legally binding, such as advertisements.
I would think this would fall under this catagory and would easily be thrown out of court.
eg. "you advertised this fish to get this big"
it might, it might not etc.
it looks like such a contract in Ontario would not stand up in court.
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~bovaird/c19/10b-contracts.htm
it is interesting to note that contracts do NOT have to be in writing, so our store informing customers was just as good
and also, some contracts by their nature are not legally binding, such as advertisements.
I would think this would fall under this catagory and would easily be thrown out of court.
eg. "you advertised this fish to get this big"
it might, it might not etc.
it looks like such a contract in Ontario would not stand up in court.
Bderick67;3621590; said:Ya, I would too.
Petsmart requires signing a contract when adopting dogs or cats from them. It could be that this area Petsmart(s) may have also applied this to large fish that most can't home.
The adoption contract is more a promise then anything, but honorable persons keep this promise and probably would have done the right thing anyhow. This "contract" could also be part of the education process.
Seems with many here opinion is, if it comes from Petsmart it must be evil
I don't think Petsmart is an evil empire trying to drive all lfs, out of business, at any cost. I think that this innocent sheet of paper has some significance. Nothing is ever printed and distributed by any profitable, successful corporation without being run by a legal department, comprised of smart, well-polished, shrewed attorneys. If some rogue store manager takes it upon himself to distribute documents to the public, without legal approval, it could cost the company millions and it will cost that store manager his job. Just understand that these attorneys sit and think of ways to protect the corporations that they work for. They are 2-5 steps ahead of MFkers and the rest of the unassuming public. I'm a veterinary sales consultant for a Fortune 500 corporation. We're not allowed to create any documents for distribution, without running it by my management team and if they see it worthy of use, they run it by legal for final approval.
Bderick67;3622010; said:Wowyour reading an aweful lot into something that is pure speculation.
I agree. It's all speculation . . . But if Petsmart is officially making an agreement/contract a part of their fish sales protocol, then it's been approved by their legal department.
