This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

You press ‘Agree’, you lost the right to sue the company.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Disney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can’t operate without following Disney’s rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Show me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.

        • ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying “prove me wrong”.

          Why don’t you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I’m not entertaining it.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.

            • ZMonster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Obviously I can’t possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.

              And that DOES make sense.

              • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                Right, but if they’re not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn’t fall under their tos, because they don’t own it.

                • ZMonster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The restaurant isn’t suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

                  When you are ready to move on, go for it.

                  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    So they’re doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.