Free Dinner Pass.com Aka: Get Special Gifts.com Fraudulent offer Florida Internet

Mary...

If you are concluding, based on these terms, that you have no fesible legal recourse, you may very well be mistaken.

These are "boilerplate" terms, terms that exist in almost any contract, but are not actually "bargained for" in any sense. The law looks unfavorably on these terms, especially when they are used to perpetuate fraud. And, just beause something is in a contract, doesn't mean a court of law would enforce it.

The first clause you mention purports to limit any litigation to the laws and courts of the State of Florida. Under standard jurisdictional rules, a company that solicits business nationwide is subject to the jurisdiction of any state where claims may arise. The clause in question tries to limit this by claiming that you have agreed to pursue your remedies in Florida. These clauses are generally upheld in business-to-business contracts, but courts are hesitant to enforce them in business-to-consumer contracts.

If it appears as though a company has perpetrated a fraud, a judge would likely strike this "forum selection clause" and allow you to litigate in your local courts.

I also have doubts as to whether a court would enforce the other clause you showed us. However, that might not even matter. That clause might be relevant when you get the gift certificate from FreeDinnerPass and it is not honored by the restaurant. You, however, have not recieved what freedinnerpass itself was offering. As such, I don't even think the clause in question applies.

Now, given that you aren't really out anything that wasn't free in the first place, I know full well that you will never go through the trouble of pursuing litigation. But, for future endeavors, remember that just because something is in a contract does not mean that a court will enforce it. Contracts between consumers and businesses always contain a multitude of terms that are so beneficial to the company, and so detrimental to the consumer, that cogent public policy does not allow for their enforcement.

Also, in the future, ignore any internet ad that is promising something for free.

Best of luck to you!

Mary...

If you are concluding, based on these terms, that you have no fesible legal recourse, you may very well be mistaken.

These are "boilerplate" terms, terms that exist in almost any contract, but are not actually "bargained for" in any sense. The law looks unfavorably on these terms, especially when they are used to perpetuate fraud. And, just beause something is in a contract, doesn't mean a court of law would enforce it.

The first clause you mention purports to limit any litigation to the laws and courts of the State of Florida. Under standard jurisdictional rules, a company that solicits business nationwide is subject to the jurisdiction of any state where claims may arise. The clause in question tries to limit this by claiming that you have agreed to pursue your remedies in Florida. These clauses are generally upheld in business-to-business contracts, but courts are hesitant to enforce them in business-to-consumer contracts.

If it appears as though a company has perpetrated a fraud, a judge would likely strike this "forum selection clause" and allow you to litigate in your local courts.

I also have doubts as to whether a court would enforce the other clause you showed us. However, that might not even matter. That clause might be relevant when you get the gift certificate from FreeDinnerPass and it is not honored by the restaurant. You, however, have not recieved what freedinnerpass itself was offering. As such, I don't even think the clause in question applies.

Now, given that you aren't really out anything that wasn't free in the first place, I know full well that you will never go through the trouble of pursuing litigation. But, for future endeavors, remember that just because something is in a contract does not mean that a court will enforce it. Contracts between consumers and businesses always contain a multitude of terms that are so beneficial to the company, and so detrimental to the consumer, that cogent public policy does not allow for their enforcement.

Also, in the future, ignore any internet ad that is promising something for free.

Best of luck to you!

Mary...

If you are concluding, based on these terms, that you have no fesible legal recourse, you may very well be mistaken.

These are "boilerplate" terms, terms that exist in almost any contract, but are not actually "bargained for" in any sense. The law looks unfavorably on these terms, especially when they are used to perpetuate fraud. And, just beause something is in a contract, doesn't mean a court of law would enforce it.

The first clause you mention purports to limit any litigation to the laws and courts of the State of Florida. Under standard jurisdictional rules, a company that solicits business nationwide is subject to the jurisdiction of any state where claims may arise. The clause in question tries to limit this by claiming that you have agreed to pursue your remedies in Florida. These clauses are generally upheld in business-to-business contracts, but courts are hesitant to enforce them in business-to-consumer contracts.

If it appears as though a company has perpetrated a fraud, a judge would likely strike this "forum selection clause" and allow you to litigate in your local courts.

I also have doubts as to whether a court would enforce the other clause you showed us. However, that might not even matter. That clause might be relevant when you get the gift certificate from FreeDinnerPass and it is not honored by the restaurant. You, however, have not recieved what freedinnerpass itself was offering. As such, I don't even think the clause in question applies.

Now, given that you aren't really out anything that wasn't free in the first place, I know full well that you will never go through the trouble of pursuing litigation. But, for future endeavors, remember that just because something is in a contract does not mean that a court will enforce it. Contracts between consumers and businesses always contain a multitude of terms that are so beneficial to the company, and so detrimental to the consumer, that cogent public policy does not allow for their enforcement.

Also, in the future, ignore any internet ad that is promising something for free.

Best of luck to you!

Mary...

If you are concluding, based on these terms, that you have no fesible legal recourse, you may very well be mistaken.

These are "boilerplate" terms, terms that exist in almost any contract, but are not actually "bargained for" in any sense. The law looks unfavorably on these terms, especially when they are used to perpetuate fraud. And, just beause something is in a contract, doesn't mean a court of law would enforce it.

The first clause you mention purports to limit any litigation to the laws and courts of the State of Florida. Under standard jurisdictional rules, a company that solicits business nationwide is subject to the jurisdiction of any state where claims may arise. The clause in question tries to limit this by claiming that you have agreed to pursue your remedies in Florida. These clauses are generally upheld in business-to-business contracts, but courts are hesitant to enforce them in business-to-consumer contracts.

If it appears as though a company has perpetrated a fraud, a judge would likely strike this "forum selection clause" and allow you to litigate in your local courts.

I also have doubts as to whether a court would enforce the other clause you showed us. However, that might not even matter. That clause might be relevant when you get the gift certificate from FreeDinnerPass and it is not honored by the restaurant. You, however, have not recieved what freedinnerpass itself was offering. As such, I don't even think the clause in question applies.

Now, given that you aren't really out anything that wasn't free in the first place, I know full well that you will never go through the trouble of pursuing litigation. But, for future endeavors, remember that just because something is in a contract does not mean that a court will enforce it. Contracts between consumers and businesses always contain a multitude of terms that are so beneficial to the company, and so detrimental to the consumer, that cogent public policy does not allow for their enforcement.

Also, in the future, ignore any internet ad that is promising something for free.

Best of luck to you!