this is so odd that i wonder if someone just googled it and added it to their agreement. this might be more appropriate language in an agency agreement, not a service provider.
if anything, the indemnity should flow in the other direction.
as always, failing to name the company does a disservice to this community.
If we fuck up, you pay for it.
That language is very intentional.
if so, that makes it even more strange.
People are welcome to PM. Thank you.
In Vino V…….
…………V………
Veritas
it’s vino vault.
no idea why OP makes things so difficult
As a general personal opinion, somebody who stores valuable assets in a facility, and pays out of pocket in order to assume its open-ended risks, should consider hedge funds and private equity funds.
It would seem that an indoor self-storage place with climate control might be safer.
I’m a full service Vino Vault storage customer in Los Angeles. My only complaint is that they use Wine Owners rather than CellarTracker for cellar management software. I’ve never signed an agreement with them; I was a customer they inherited from The Best Cellar/Carte du Vin.
All potential disputes created by their acquisition and move to the former Wine Hotel have been handled amicably and to my satisfaction.
Aa a personal and general opinion, if any enterprise makes formal efforts to treat its customers as gullible, deep-pocketed marks, doing business elsewhere is a reasonable move, literally and figuratively.
I probably would have blindly signed it.
Do you think this thing would actually be enforceable?
Non-disclosure agreements which are overly broad have been getting overturned.
However, this is a liability indemnification, which is entirely different, and might be enforceable despite its breath-taking breadth. You do not want to face the costs of litigation defense, which has zero upside.
For example, look up the old thread about the NDA and liability indemnification which Vinotemp got its customers to sign blithely.
Of course, I am just a poor Chinatown noodle-slinger, not a lawyer.
Wouldn’t that be thrown out of court as unconscionable in 0.2 seconds? Assuming they would try to come after you in your truck-scenario.
Even if a court tosses the Agreement, legal and other costs can be substantial. If not, those and a potentially adverse settlement are worse.
Note that the agreement forces private arbitration, disallowing public court action for remedy.
That’s pretty much it, it’s money and will power. A measure of how well your lawyer can argue, and how patient you are. And that’s no guarantee.
Easier to read and not get involved with things your don’t want to get out of. After the fact it can be a black hole of cost.
The Agreement survives for four years after service termination.
Which is insane in and of itself, and smart on their part.
If people believe that a company will not seek to enforce an over-reaching liability waiver or indemnification, see this.
Who wants to get embroiled, even if later winning?
That’s different. Disney is claiming the action should be in binding arbitration, not claiming it was waived or anything to do with indemnification. They can still pursue their claim, Disney is just saying it should be through arbitration rather than in court.
The Disney+ part of that claim is silly, but I think binding arbitration is part of the contract of purchasing the tickets, which is not so crazy (and thus is omitted in this story you linked). From the LA Times story:
The company said he agreed to those terms and conditions again when he purchased Disney World tickets on behalf of himself and his wife. Disney said the binding arbitration clause for the tickets applies to anyone he bought tickets for, according to the response.
Unlike the clause that you started this thread about, businesses do indeed try to enforce arbitration clauses. I was an in house attorney for a large national health club company for many years. People would often remark to me that there must be so much litigation about injuries and stuff around the clubs, and actually, the opposite was true, since everyone in the club was a member and had signed an arbitration clause and a clause accepting the inherent risks of being in a fitness club.
It’s completely different than, say, a Wal-Mart, K&L Wine or Morton’s Steakouse, where customers in the store have not signed any kind of contract with the store. If they feel they suffered some injury while visiting the establishment, they can go to court over it.