A Couple Fights the Cost of a Crossing

[jeffandnicole]

Or they could act in a way that would make it less likely for them to get sued.  If businesses worked for the greater good rather than profit, they'd probably find themselves in court a lot less.

2 words: McDonalds coffee.  We now need a disclaimer on every coffee cup from almost every restaurant stating contents may be hot. 

Everyone wants less fine print and bigger fine print.  But the second you try to remove the fine print, someone (actually, multiple people) will go up to a business and say "Well, your ad doesn't say this, so you have to honor it".

In many cases, the contract is so lengthy because someone sued a company. This, the company must add something to the contract to protect themselves from such lawsuits.

More likely that the company needed to sue a customer, but couldn't because the necessary contract language was missing.

One common such feature of car rental contracts is the provision forbidding the rental vehicle from being driven to Mexico, which among other problems means a higher risk that the vehicle may never come back to the company. Add in other such "defensive" provisions to protect the company against customer misbehavior, and you end up with a fairly lengthy contract even if (hypothetically) the company is trying to keep the contract short.

Very true. The lawsuits can work either way. 

[US81]

The important detail in the McDonald's lawsuit is that the coffee was not served around 140F as per common practice but around 190F.  Third degree burns occurred in two to five seconds. I see the point you are trying to make but that particular example does not fit.

[J N Winkler]

If there is no advance warning of a toll facility (especially one that does not accept cash or has a short online payment period), the agency in charge of the road and maybe the facility operator should be guilty of entrapment and should have to fork over some money to their victims.  The MUTCD should also be modified to make use of the 'last exit before toll' plaque or a similar sign mandatory.

Agreed--as Oscar pointed out upthread, part of the solution rests in the hands of the toll authorities.  In particular, signing should conform to the principle that a motorist will never be guided onto a toll facility without a legal means to avoid the toll that is available after he or she has been advised that toll is charged and been told what the options are for payment.

It has already been noted upthread that the toll crossing in question has advance signing for the toll.  However, it has not been clarified whether it is possible to U-turn legally or otherwise avoid the facility after being told that tolls are paid cashlessly only.

Briantroutman also raises an excellent point about business models that rely on consumers signing without having an opportunity to read and assimilate all of the contract provisions.  Parol rule notwithstanding, this is legally unsound and we may not be far away from a series of court decisions overturning contracts on this basis.  Plus the contract document itself is not the only way to advise renters of any additional fees that may be charged.  If the car rental company were interested in carrying on its business with integrity, it could easily affix a sticker advising of toll processing fees either to the transponder or in another location that is highly visible to the renter, such as the middle of the dashboard.

[briantroutman]

In many cases, the contract is so lengthy because someone sued a company. This, the company must add something to the contract to protect themselves from such lawsuits.

If a car rental agency (or any other business, for that matter) uses restraint in drafting a contract–and doesn't deluge the customer with a dozen or more pages–that doesn't mean that they've given up any rights or their ability to sue, nor does it open them up to a greater risk of lawsuits.

All the flood of paperwork does is that it makes conditions constituting a breach, and the remedies for curing that breach, more definite and less open to interpretation. In the absence of specific language in the contract, either party can seek what is provided for by statue or common law, which is typically defined as what a normal person would consider "reasonable" . The real-world, in most cases, is that the vendor is able to use the lengthy "take-it-or-leave-it"  contract to ramrod through all sorts of terms that are not, in a sense, "reasonable" .

For example, if you are required to fill up your rental car's fuel tank before returning it and fail to do so, the rental agency would be entitled to collect what a judge or jury would agree is "reasonable"   compensation for their damages–which most likely would be the actual cost to fill the tank, plus some modest compensation for the time spent filling the tank. But when the contract states that returning the car with anything less than a full tank will result in a $12.60 per gallon charge for the entire tank volume (regardless of how much fuel they had to add), the agency is legally allowed to rake in close to $200 when their actual damages were closer to $50.

Multiply that quick $150 profit by millions of customers a year, and you've got a healthy side stream going.

As far as a meeting of the minds go, if that was held true to the absolute highest of standards, no one would be able to own a house or rent an apartment.

I'll agree that it may be reasonable and necessary to hire an attorney to review an apartment lease, and I wouldn't buy real estate without one. In those cases, you definitely must have a "meeting of the minds" –hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line. But to have a similar level of documentation to rent a Chevy Sonic at $19.99/weekend day...that doesn't strike you as being out-of-whack?

Or they could act in a way that would make it less likely for them to get sued.  If businesses worked for the greater good rather than profit, they'd probably find themselves in court a lot less.

I'd rephrase that this way: "If businesses worked for their long-term profitability rather than short-term gains, they'd probably find themselves in court a lot less."

It's completely necessary for business to constantly seek profits; that's the businesses officers' duty to the shareholders. But I think much of this nickel-ing and dime-ing comes from the attitude: "Sure, we'll screw the customer and make them hate us, but the Q3 numbers will be great, and by the time it hits the fan, I'll cash in my options and be outta here."

[J N Winkler]

All the flood of paperwork does is that it makes conditions constituting a breach, and the remedies for curing that breach, more definite and less open to interpretation. In the absence of specific language in the contract, either party can seek what is provided for by statue or common law, which is typically defined as what a normal person would consider "reasonable" . The real-world, in most cases, is that the vendor is able to use the lengthy "take-it-or-leave-it"  contract to ramrod through all sorts of terms that are not, in a sense, "reasonable" .

For example, if you are required to fill up your rental car's fuel tank before returning it and fail to do so, the rental agency would be entitled to collect what a judge or jury would agree is "reasonable"   compensation for their damages–which most likely would be the actual cost to fill the tank, plus some modest compensation for the time spent filling the tank. But when the contract states that returning the car with anything less than a full tank will result in a $12.60 per gallon charge for the entire tank volume (regardless of how much fuel they had to add), the agency is legally allowed to rake in close to $200 when their actual damages were closer to $50.

But in contract law there are constraints on that type of misbehavior:  the doctrines of unconscionability and contra proferentem are just two of them.  I am not sure that excessive fees have actually been subjected to a reasonableness test in court, let alone one that takes into account the circumstances under which the consumer is required to agree to them.  It is so expensive to sue that the economically rational consumer (as opposed, say, to one who has a strong moral belief in business ethics) would generally find himself or herself better off paying the excessive fees rather than hiring a lawyer to challenge them in court.  Since car rental usually implies that the renter lives far outside the jurisdiction, this introduces an additional problem of "remote control" in bringing any legal action.

This said, there is no shortage of court cases where various contract provisions (e.g. ones requiring mediation or limiting the forums in which the party with less bargaining power can sue) have been ruled unenforceable.  We now live in an age where contract drafting is dominated by a type of brinkmanship.

[vdeane]

In many cases, the contract is so lengthy because someone sued a company. This, the company must add something to the contract to protect themselves from such lawsuits.

More likely that the company needed to sue a customer, but couldn't because the necessary contract language was missing.

One common such feature of car rental contracts is the provision forbidding the rental vehicle from being driven to Mexico, which among other problems means a higher risk that the vehicle may never come back to the company. Add in other such "defensive" provisions to protect the company against customer misbehavior, and you end up with a fairly lengthy contract even if (hypothetically) the company is trying to keep the contract short.

I have definitely seen such.  My current apartment lease includes, among other things, the instructions for operating the garbage disposal in the kitchen sink.  The last company I worked for had a prohibition on being employed in a similar capacity with an organization they do business with while with the company because of a person who tried to get paid twice a second salary for the work they were already doing.  I can be very interesting to find out why certain provisions are in contracts if you're in a position to find out.  But, I feel that this is the result of a legal system that emphasizes technicalities over fairness and doing what is right.

[rickmastfan67]

I've recounted my experience with ordering Peace Bridge E-ZPass tags before. (I had to order two, one for each vehicle as they were non-transferable, and they didn't arrive in time for my wife's trip, so I drove to Charleston and got a West Virginia tag, which is transferable between vehicles as long as said vehicles are registered to the account.)

So each agency does do it differently. Peace Bridge only allowed one vehicle per tag, while West Virginia allows more than one.

Since when does the Peace Bridge allow only one vehicle per tag???  We have our Ez-Pass via the Peace Bridge and have never had any problem transferring our 2 tags to rental cars and back when we needed to.

[hbelkins]

They did when I ordered mine from them. They've never been used. Since they did not come in by the time they were needed, I got the WV tag. I would have only ordered one to share between my wife's vehicle and mine, like I got with WV.

I really need to send them back. I could use the $50 of tolls that I initially put on them.

[Duke87]

It has already been noted upthread that the toll crossing in question has advance signing for the toll.  However, it has not been clarified whether it is possible to U-turn legally or otherwise avoid the facility after being told that tolls are paid cashlessly only.

There are signs warning of this in both directions before the last exit (northbound example).

They're off to the side and not very in your face, though, so very easy to tune out as noise or just glance at and say "right, there's a toll, got it" without actually reading them. And none of them explicitly say "NO CASH ACCEPTED". They say "toll billed by mail", and I wouldn't blame someone unfamiliar with the concept of AET for not understanding what that means.

[cpzilliacus]

It has already been noted upthread that the toll crossing in question has advance signing for the toll.  However, it has not been clarified whether it is possible to U-turn legally or otherwise avoid the facility after being told that tolls are paid cashlessly only.

There are signs warning of this in both directions before the last exit (northbound example).

They're off to the side and not very in your face, though, so very easy to tune out as noise or just glance at and say "right, there's a toll, got it" without actually reading them. And none of them explicitly say "NO CASH ACCEPTED". They say "toll billed by mail", and I wouldn't blame someone unfamiliar with the concept of AET for not understanding what that means.

Every entrance to Md. 200 (ICC) says quite explicitly TOLL, NO CASH has the E-ZPass logo.

[Duke87]

MdTA is a more competent agency than (NY) MTA. Tell us something we don't already know.

[jeffandnicole]

Looks to be about the same type signage as the height sign behind you.  Miss the toll sign, and you get a toll invoice in the mail.  Miss the height sign, and you get a lot more issues to deal with.

It'll be interesting to know how many non-EZ Pass vehicles get on an entire highway such as MD 200 anyway, compared to using a single plaza in an area where people are accustomed to people-operated toll plazas. 

[mrsman]

I think there is a key difference between the HH Bridge and MD-200.  For the HH Bridge, it's EZ-PASS with a cash-less option.  For those who don't have EZ-PASS they can still take the crossing, but would have to pay an administrative fee.  Ignoring the rental car issues, the administrative fee charged by the MTA is not that high.

For the ICC, if you use it without an EZ-PASS you have committed a violation.  The fee is quite higher accordingly.

I applaud the notion of cash-less tolls.  Imagine a completely seam-less toll crossing.  Nobody slows down.  Nobody changes lanes.  The throughput of the toll crossing is substantially increased and traffic is greatly improved. But it is important that cash-=less tolls be done in a very fair way.

1) Transponders should be available without monthly fees
2) Pay by internet option should be available within 3 days of making the crossing for no additional fees
3) If you receive a bill in the mail, the administrative fee should be limited to the lower of 100% of the toll or $10.  E.g. If I cross at a $5 crossing, the administrative fee should be $5 and the total charge on the bill that I receive in the mail should only be $10, if I timely pay the bill that I receive.
4) Bill recipients should have at least 14 days from the postmark of the bill to pay the bill without accruing late fees.
5) Rental car companies fees with regard to electronic tolls need to be limited as well.

And I'm tired of hearing toll road agencies saying that the fees are necessary because of the costs of license plate recognition or joining the EZ-Pass consortium.  Yes, there are costs involved.  But these electronic technologies are saving the toll road millions of dollars by not having to pay the salaries, benefits, and pensions of toll-takers.  If the regular toll structure was able to pay for the toll-takers, the regular toll structure should be able to pay for the costs of the technology.

[J N Winkler]

I thought I'd mention how AET worked on the Golden Gate Bridge when I crossed it on a Saturday some weeks ago as part of a vacation.  I approached on US 101 from the north.  There were several VMS signs, all positioned well upstream of viable turnback points, advising motorists that cash tolls were not accepted at the booths and that motorists without Fastrak should call 511 to find out how they could pay toll.

I remembered Oscar's previous post in this thread and was reasonably sure I could just drive through the tollbooths and arrange payment later.  However, I didn't want to take that chance, nor could I call 511 (profound hearing loss in both ears makes direct voice use of a phone impossible).  So I just exited US 101 into the Golden Gate Recreation Area, eventually finding a place to park near the fishing pier, and used my phone to Google {Golden Gate Bridge how to pay toll without transponder}.  It turns out there are three options for cashless payment:  (1) Fastrak transponder; (2) bill-by-plate by registering your license plate number, your credit card number, and a validity period that can extend an unlimited time before your last transit of the facility to up to 48 hours after; and (3) bill-by-mail with "a small administrative fee" and (if memory serves) a 30-day window for payment before the unpaid toll is treated as a violation.  I chose option (2), submitting the necessary details over my phone, received an email receipt almost immediately, and was on my way.  It was a remarkably smooth experience, the most painful part of which was negotiating a major Saturday recreational destination for Bay Area residents.

[vdeane]

I think the toll plus administrative fee for both the Golden Gate and the Henry Hudson Bridge is just the old cash rate.

[mtantillo]

I think the toll plus administrative fee for both the Golden Gate and the Henry Hudson Bridge is just the old cash rate.

It is. And based on MTA's policies, the Henry Hudson Bridge old cash rate is not only the bill-by-mail rate, but also the E-ZPass rate for non-NY issued transponders.

[J N Winkler]

I think the toll plus administrative fee for both the Golden Gate and the Henry Hudson Bridge is just the old cash rate.

This is the page I landed on:

https://www.bayareafastrak.org/vector/static/about/payGGBToll.shtml

It doesn't actually mention toll rates, though it does link to the page that does:

http://goldengatebridge.org/tolls_traffic/toll_rates.php

I don't think I even consulted the toll rates before I arranged payment.  I only had a vague sense that, owing to seismic retrofits and cost overruns on the Bay Bridge east span replacement, I would not get much change from $10 for using any of the Bay Area crossings.  I knew that I would have to pay toll only once given my itinerary on the peninsula (Golden Gate Bridge to Bay Bridge via SR 1, SR 92, I-280, I-380, and US 101), so I was more concerned about insulating myself from the possibility of being charged much higher fees for a violation.  I was not really interested in being billed in arrears because any benefit I would have gotten from the float would have been quite small in comparison to the risk of losing track of the bill (quite easy to do in comparison to rent, utilities, etc. since it does not conform to a scheduled billing cycle) and having it turn into a violation.