Sunday, April 29, 2012

Non-Disparagement - Contract Standards

Non-Disparagement - Contract Standards
Here is an explanation of non-disparagement clauses like the one referred to in the article cited below. It seems that they are already being used in CC&Rs. I can see why Warner Brothers and CBS would put one in Charlie Sheen's contract. I can't see why every homeowner in a CID should be silenced. I haven't researched the enforcement of these clauses in that context, and if anybody has a case citation please send it along.


Fred Pilot said...

I seem to recall there was a case or cases regarding the posting of signs disparaging developers for construction defects but don't have cites.

Fred Fischer said...

Samuel Adams said, If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation [support], they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them."

Non-Disparagement clauses when found in CC&Rs or other places within a HOA declaration are an example of what Samuel Adams meant. Its purpose by the exclusive contract creators is clear, to silence free speech to advance, preserve and protect their CID housing product with its private corporate governance entity which manages its affairs. Which also seeks to impose “undue influence” by denying property owners of constitutional and other property rights without owners consent. Then the industry says the owners shouldn’t ask their legislators to change the contract because they freely entered into and agreed to its provisions and therefore should obey it without question. Despite the fact that many personal and other private property rights are forfeited at purchase nor warnings of other risks were mentioned in the sales, disclosure or declaration documents.

When you’re not at the table you end up on the menu ! (TOG lobbyist) This both applies when members don’t participate in their HOA meetings and also explains how property owners have lost so many of their property rights when buying into CID’s.

“Every right that we enjoy emanates from property rights,” constitutional instructor Shane Krauser said. Therefore until consumers get that seat at the contract creation table they will continue to be consumed economically and emotionally as they lose more property rights to the contract.

Anonymous said...

> I can see why Warner Brothers and CBS would put one in Charlie Sheen's contract.
> I can't see why every homeowner in a CID should be silenced.

In "When Companies Become Countries" (4/9/12), "Dilbert" cartoonist Scott Adams speculates about "when the first multinational company will form its own country to avoid wars, government red tape, and corporate taxes."

"The corporate government would look a lot like the Chinese government.
In other words, it would be efficient in terms of profit, while giving up freedoms
that employees are already accustomed to giving up. For example, company
employees don't have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing management.
Somehow we live with that restriction and it doesn't seem too onerous.

One of the problems with "contract" law is that it doesn't distinguish between employees and consumers. As far as the right-wing is concerned, you have the same right to be governed by a corporation at home (or on vacation) as you do at work.

The idea that consumers should be prohibited from informing other consumers about defective products and services is un-American. That this is allowed is evidence that right-wing thought has morphed from "Free-markets are a way to ensure economic liberty and prosperity for most people" to "Corporations should be allowed to do whatever they can get away with".