"At the very least, they should be explicitly, and in common, everyday language, give something like: "The average buyer that used this financing option ended up paying X% above the base price".
"
All this does is increase the number of documents.
Seriously. How do you think it got to be so many documents, where half are disclaimers and "plain english" warnings/etc for the consumer.
They usually don't hide the actual impact.
In the three states i've bought houses, there is at least one page in the set that literally says "you are taking out a loan for $x
your interest rate is x%
after 30 years, you will have paid $x for this loan"
Similar things happen for auto financing.
What more do you want?
Also note that no amount of plain english is going to make complicated things both simple to understand and correct in all the details. That's in fact, exactly why they are complicated. Most loan documents are pretty plain english these days, so it's usually not overuse of legalese either.
(plus, what makes it easy for you to understand may not be the same as for others).
One does not get to say it's everyone else's job to make you competent.
If you go and implement PaxOS and screw it up, you are welcome to try to blame Lamport for writing impenetrable papers, but most people are going to blame you for not making yourself competent.
You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no obligation to educate. This is a contradiction.
> but most people are going to blame you for not making yourself competent
Shouldn't it go both ways? Businesses might be confident with your assertion and might rely on it to do business. But blame is the wrong attitude if you go in holding that opinion it's fraud. If you let someone sign a contract although you are sure they didn't read it, that's fraud. Simple as that. Why do I get weird looks when I actually start reading a contract I am about to sign?
"You defend the leeching practices of financiers by the claim that the law already demands obvious hints in contracts, but consequently pretend that there was no obligation to educate. This is a contradiction.
"
As i mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of states very explicitly require education as well!
". If you let someone sign a contract although you are sure they didn't read it, that's fraud.'
Actually, it's not by any definition of fraud.
You have not intentionally deceived anyone of anything.
It would only be fraud if you intentionally told them the wrong thing, or deliberately tried to get them to not read it, or something more than "knowing this person has not educated themselves". We don't have a lot of thoughtcrimes.
It may be a void contract, but it's definitely not fraud!
" Why do I get weird looks when I actually start reading a contract I am about to sign?"
I don't, so i'm not sure.
In fact, in any real estate transaction i've ever been a part of, if i say "hey, do you mind if i take a few minutes to read this page more closely and ask you some questions about it", the answer i get is not "rolled eyes", it's "absolutely, that's what i'm here for"
I got what you said.
Apparently you missed mine, so let me try again, hopefully a little more clearly :)
You say the point is:
"That information should be displayed (by law) with prominent letters as big as the base price, under any sign/ad/etc which shows the latter."
I'm saying: It already is
Along with everything elseother people considered to be just as important to make sure everyone knew.
:)
IE The thing you want, has already happened.
You cannot find it, because not everyone agreed with you about what is the most important, so now you have 50 pages of the base price and the other important thing in big letters.
How can a person making an ad know how long a buyer's loan term will be or what interest rate they will qualify for? How would you know the value of any potential trade ins?
Things like the interest rate you qualify for are unique to the buyer. How can a print ad in the newspaper know the interest rate the buyer will qualify for? How can a print ad in a newspaper know what the purchaser of a car is going to trade in? There's not even a customer yet.
Seriously. How do you think it got to be so many documents, where half are disclaimers and "plain english" warnings/etc for the consumer.
They usually don't hide the actual impact.
In the three states i've bought houses, there is at least one page in the set that literally says "you are taking out a loan for $x your interest rate is x% after 30 years, you will have paid $x for this loan"
Similar things happen for auto financing. What more do you want?
Also note that no amount of plain english is going to make complicated things both simple to understand and correct in all the details. That's in fact, exactly why they are complicated. Most loan documents are pretty plain english these days, so it's usually not overuse of legalese either.
(plus, what makes it easy for you to understand may not be the same as for others).
One does not get to say it's everyone else's job to make you competent.
If you go and implement PaxOS and screw it up, you are welcome to try to blame Lamport for writing impenetrable papers, but most people are going to blame you for not making yourself competent.