Disney probably doesn't care if this argument holds in a court of law. If it does, jackpot, they now have a get out of jail free card due to case law. Their main objective is to wear down the plaintiff financially or mentally so that they drop the case.
It's particularly entertaining because he's dead, so whatever agreement he made doesn't stop her from filing a suit. In other words, this is not a situation where someone who's currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.
One of the other interesting points of contract law that I think Disney will quickly lose is the fact that the agreement years ago was between two parties for something that happened years ago. They will have difficulty successfully arguing that what looked like a small scale deal that has long since ended actually had potential negative ramifications but only for one party, for the rest of their lives. If Disney were still giving him benefits up to his death, I think that could potentially be a different situation.
And as usual, depending on the level of negligence on Disney's end, it doesn't matter what he agreed to.
How the fuck is it not punishable to write stuff into those contracts that contradict the law (obv. i mean this past a certain company size). Like for real.
Dependig on the country you live in, there might be some law above what Disney might say. For example in most European Countries it's the case. And no matter what Disney writes, like "killing you is alright". There is a law above it that overrules it.
Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.
They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone's right to seek justice.
Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.
I really hope a politician bans those "Class Action Waiver" and "Revoking Right to Arbitration" riders that are getting put into everyone's Term and Conditions contracts. We should have the right to band together if a corporation fucks us over and this is ridiculous.
I sincerely hope this shit blows up. May corporations providing "free" services forever be associated with literal devil's contacts. Piracy is no longer just about sticking it to the man, it's about freedom!
Disney said late Wednesday that it is “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss but stressed the Irish pub is neither owned nor operated by the company. The company’s stance in the litigation doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s claims against the eatery, it added.
“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company wrote in an emailed statement.
For some reason that word "merely" just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it's peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.
...Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights...
I know Disney is as cliché as an evil megacorp gets, but I'm going to need a source for this before I start believing in just any absurd sounding tale.
It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.
I know this isn't the point at all, but it must suck to be the chef in charge of that kitchen right now. Like you've already made a mistake that's killed a doctor and now it's become massive international news...Yikes!
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn't really make it better but still
Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I'm not saying they are in the right, all I'm relativizing is the "years earlier" at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn't cover this kind of situation.
If SCOTUS sides with the corporation and if I were the binding arbitrator who had to see it afterwards, I would hit Disney with a whopper of a settlement out of pure disgust for this.
Regardless of how crazy Disney's stance is - the widower is suing, who never entered into any agreement with Disney.
The guy who, according to Disney, did wave his rights is dead. He's not gonna sue anyone anymore.
Man, I cant wait till the grand confluence of fascist sycophants foot-trolls and fascist sycophant appointees hit eachother and it all becomes apparent they are just …. oh wait that already is happening with gaz—-oh wait… oh wait. what? you mean Compan000s0sdf0sodjufhgah00y7ruouoobbel peu8rp;il
Shitty of Disney, but if I had a food allergy so severe it could literally kill me, I would never eat out anywhere knowing my life was potentially in the hands of some teenage kitchen worker who has not the slightest concern or knowledge regarding food allergens.
EDIT: Instead of downvoting, maybe explain why you disagree? Is something wrong with that reasoning? Do you think it is impractical to never eat out? I don't have allergies and almost never eat out anyway due to refusing to pay inflated prices.