Some states give consumers the right to cancel certain contracts for any reason

Question

Some states give consumers the right to cancel certain contracts for any reason within a short period of time after entering into them. For example, consumers in California can get out of gym membership contracts by sending the gym a cancellation notice within five business days of joining. Similar statutes cover insurance, weight loss services, door-to-door sales, and home repair contracts. If these agreements meet all of the requirements for a contract, why would a state allow people to get out of them so easily? Is this good policy? Alternatively, if consumers can cancel these contracts, why not allow everyone to cancel any contract within a few days? PLEASE BE ORIGINAL AND DONT COPY FROM SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED...

Explanation / Answer

All these contracts have one thing common, that the services may not be the way you might have thought them to be, or the outcome does not seem to be aligned to your intent at the time of entering into the contract. This along with other causes like movement to a distant place, disability etc. may also be cited for cancellation of a health club contract.

The laws have been designed to protect the interests of consumers who either enter the contract mistakenly or based on misassumpions. This also save the consumers who find the services not in line with their objectives that prompted them to join or purchase the service.

The policy is specific to certain industries and has the sole objective of saving the consumers from entering into an unwanted situation and stay there for long, wasting the money, time and remain in agony for the period of contract, without any gain.

These cases are the ones where none of the parties suffers significant loss, financial or otherwise, but the more vulnerable party is saved from suffering to continue with an unwanted situation. All contracts can not be brought in this purview because of the nature of situations which vary case to case. In some cases, one or both parties may suffer because of an exit clause, or one party may suffer more than the other, sometimes heavily, in terms of finances, hassle or other losses, damages and hardships. Therefore to put none of the parties to disadvantage, this clause does not apply everywhere.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.