November 23, 2004

• One more reason to actually read the contract before you sign it.
• Can you even sign away that sort of a right? I'm not so sure. Of course, fighting it in court would be enormously expensive, but you'd think there'd be some local lawyer willing to work pro bono on this. In any case, it sure sounds like an intimidation campaign to me.

• Our Warranties Mean Peace-of-Mind Choosing a builder to construct your new home is a major decision. When considering Mercedes Home -- take note of this fact: We're so confident of our building standards, that we back every home with a one- and two-year limited warranty as well as a ten-year structural warranty.

  So which cancels the other out?
• Or more importantly, which one covers the lousy job they did on the roof? re uncleozzy- is this a possible case for the ACLU?
• The other side of the coin of medical malpractice suits is that lawyers are fighting to get records of annual payouts from insurance companies. The insurance companies are not releasing the records. In instances where the there is a court order to turn over the records, it has been found that payouts have dropped over the past five years for medical malpractice claims, while premiums have skyrocketed. So why do legislators go after trial lawyers and not the insurance companies? I read article in the New Yorker two or three years ago about Karl Rove. Rove said that Democrats get their money largely from unions, trial lawyers, and Hollywood. He was seeking ways to cut off that money. That is one reason why the Republican party is so actively anti-union. So it makes sense for the Republicans to desperately want to cut into how much money trial lawyers can earn. If they succeed there, then they will have been able to effectively cut down two of the three major sources of funding for the Democratic Party. Then all they will have to do is continue to ridicule anyone in Hollywood who gets involved with the Democratic Party politically.
• A feedback form! YAY! http://www.mercedeshomes.com/Feedback.asp
• (Although I suppose if signing an NDA can be legal, this can too. On the other hand, an NDA protects trade secrets, while contractual language like this protects only frauds.)
• The first (?) amendment would surely override this. It's the top end of the law. So this clause should be automatically null and void, and if Mercedes Homes disagrees, the ACLU would certainly persuade them otherwise I bet. And besides, personal health is a million times more important than any of this. If you have a kid sleeping in a mildewed room, the long-term effects on that kid's lungs will be awful. So what, if the parents take their sick child to a doctor and explain that their child is in a substandard house, will the housing company sue them then? It's just not feasible; there are a million things wrong with it.
• It's in Florida, so maybe they won't notice. Because, you know, it hardly ever rains there. Feedback form Now with dynamic hyperlinking action!
• This doesn't surprise me. It's America.
• this is totally ridiculous. IANAL, but you cant do that. People put language in contracts all the time, like "we are not liable if the car explodes due to our negligence." But guess what, they are. The law is the law, you cant say "we're allowed to do something illegal," have someone sign it, and then do it to them.
• Depends. Non-disclosure agreements are everywhere nowadays, and are damned hard to break once you sign them. If they are couching this as an NDA, then it could hold up in court -- after all, bitching to your neighbors is disclosure. To get out of it, you either need a damn good pro bono lawyer, or else a stack of cash (when you could just spend a couple of thousand on a new roof). The home company knows this. They're taking a tip from good ol' L. Ron Hubbard: the purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harrass and annoy. And, of course, beat the holy fuck out of your bank account. I believe it's an old Yiddish curse (correct me, if any of you know better): May you be on the right side of a lawsuit.
• tracicle - strictly, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The text is here but

  Amendment I 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.

  (emphasis mine) The US government is not allowed to remove people's freedom of expression through legislation. There's nothing to say you can't sign it away to a company though.
• Screw 'em... they all live in Red States. They deserve it.
• Sweet, syrupy schadenfreude... mmmmm.....
• I normally spring to the defense of business, but this case looks pretty bad. FWIW, I filled out the online form and suggested that they fix the house, apologize, and attempt to repair the company's tattered reputation. No foul language -- just direct.
• Ah, thanks for the explanation, polychrome.
• While they have a reasonable expectation that you will follow their contract, you have a reasonable expectation that they will build you a home that is to code and functions as it should. There's no way, if all these people are correct, that these homes are to code. Where are the code enforcement people to bitch before the sale is closed?
• NDAs are tools, like screwdrivers, and achieve their intended effects when properly and appropriately used. Don't go hatin' screwdrivers if I kill your cute puppy with a shank through the eye ball.
• Hey, could be worse. If you live in Texas, the state government is actively working against home buyers, and the right to sue your negligent builder is naught but a distant dream.
• Apparently Mercedes Homes hasn't gotten hip to stuff like, uh, the internet. Brutally trying to control information, especially inflammatory stuff like this, is guaranteed to bite a big chunk out of your ass. I hope these assholes go bankrupt.
• From the article: "Is this an intimidation campaign?" Billow asked Roche, the attorney. "No, it's not. It's not intended to be intimidating. What it's intended to do is to discourage a homeowner who may or may not have legitimate concerns from damaging the company's reputation in the community," Roche said. Ummmmm... still sounds like an intimidation campaign to me.
• what bernockle said.
• The damage to thier reputation is thus tripled (or more) by the news stories about the intimidation. Very bad business practice - I had never heard of this company before, but if I ever hear of anyone ever wanting to buy a home from them, I know what I will tell them.
• Call Erin Brokovicz!