The fine print in Pimsleur’s contract has an ambiguous link that must be pursued to yet another link en route to finding the language that explains the debt the buyer is signing up for. Contracts that require buyers to successfully pursue a legal reconnaissance mission is trickery and should therefore be invalid. I ordered one language CD for 9.95. Pimsleur then began drawing 64.00 from my bank every month. I called the company and was told that I had signed up for additional merchandise. I told the Pimsleur representative that I had read the fine print carefully and there was nothing about additional merchandise and additional dept. She told me that one of the words on the contract was a link to additional information and that if I had followed that link to another link I would have found the "fine print" detailing the additional merchandise and additional debt of hundreds of dollars. Following a link in the fine print to a second link and then a third? This kind of business practice damages social contracts. If all companies acted like this, buying merchandise would be tantamount to playing roulette. Most of us would rightly choose to go without.
0 comments