Bounce House Contract

L

LoganIrisMommy

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
We are renting a bounce house, snow cone machine and generator from a local company for my son's birthday party at a park. This is part of the wording in their contract:

Breach/Indemnity/Arbitration: In the event that Lessee breaches any of the terms of this lease, that Lessee will pay for all consequential damages and further indemnify Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals for all costs incurred by Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals incurred in enforcing the terms of the lease or in defending any claim or lawsuit arising out of the operation of said equipment, including the amount of any judgment, attorney's fees and costs. If Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals determines, within its own discretion, that Lessee has failed, in any way, to observe or comply with the conditions of this lease, Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals may exercise any of the following remedies: termination of this agreement; reenter property and retake the equipment; declare any outstanding rent and charges immediately due and payable and initiate whatever legal proceedings necessary to recover said equipment or monies; and/or pursue any additional remedies available it by law. If a conflict arises, [company name] and Lessee will abide by the CA state laws and forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute.
BY SIGNING MY NAME ON THIS CONTRACT I, BEING THE LESSEE, CONTACT PERSON, LESSEE REPRESENTATIVE, OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL ASSUMING THE ROLE OF LESSEE, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE COMPLETELY READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS CONTRACT AND ANY AND ALL ACCOMPANIED ADDENDUM(S). I HAVE BEEN FULLY INSTRUCTED BY Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals PERSONNEL AS A TRAINED OPERATOR FOR THE AFFORMENTIONED EQUIPMENT AND HAVE HAD ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED TO MY SATISFACTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM SOLEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ADHERING TO THE TERMS SET FORTH BY THIS RENTAL CONTRACT AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL ACCOMPANIED ADDENDUM(S).

Is this legal in California? Would this be considered Unconscionability?
 
Perfectly legal. If you sign it, you are bound by it.

It's obviously written to protect Joe's Bounce House and does nothing for you.

If you don't like it, don't sign it, and don't do business with Joe's Bounce House.
 
I suspect that the part that reads "If a conflict arises, [company name] and Lessee will abide by the CA state laws and forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute" may be found to be unenforceable if no arbitration proceedings (aside from the header) are included.
 
Zigner said:
I suspect that the part that reads "If a conflict arises, [company name] and Lessee will abide by the CA state laws and forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute" may be found to be unenforceable if no arbitration proceedings (aside from the header) are included.
Click to expand...

Yep, that was one of the problems I spotted. Unless there is more to this arbitration provision than has been shared here, the drafting is very deficient. I hope that it was not drafted by an attorney, as that product would make me wonder about the attorney's competence.
 
LoganIrisMommy said:
Is this legal in California?
Click to expand...

There are about 17 different things in that quoted language. Is there one with which you're particularly concerned?

That said, there is nothing in that language that isn't "legal in California." Whether all of it is "[enforceable] in California" is, of course, a very different question.


LoganIrisMommy said:
Would this be considered Unconscionability?
Click to expand...

No. What part do you think might be unconscionable and why?
 
I apologize for the complexity of the follow up questions.

Maybe asking if this is legal in California may not have been a good question to ask. More the question is, is this part of the contract legally enforceable by law.

One of the concerns was the part that the title states arbitration but arbitration is not mentioned in the body of the contract for this section. It just blanketly states that we "forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute" while at the same time saying we "will abide by the CA state laws". In California, there are many legal ways to solve disputes that are legal, arbitration and litigation are not the only methods.

Also concerning is this section:

In the event that Lessee breaches any of the terms of this lease, that Lessee will pay for all consequential damages and further indemnify Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals for all costs incurred by Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals incurred in enforcing the terms of the lease or in defending any claim or lawsuit arising out of the operation of said equipment, including the amount of any judgment, attorney's fees and costs. If Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals determines, within its own discretion, that Lessee has failed, in any way, to observe or comply with the conditions of this lease, Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals may exercise any of the following remedies: termination of this agreement; reenter property and retake the equipment; declare any outstanding rent and charges immediately due and payable and initiate whatever legal proceedings necessary to recover said equipment or monies; and/or pursue any additional remedies available it by law.

For this part of the contract, I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly. I am reading the portion that says Jumping Joe's gets to make the determination, "within its own discretion, that Lessee has failed, in any way, to observe or comply with the conditions of the lease,". To have the meaning that Jumping Joe's gets to decide if the contract is breached, no judge, no arbitrator, no mediator, or anyone else, only them, can decide if the contract is breached. Essentially whatever they say goes, they are the judge, jury, and executioner.

Also, if they make this determination the Lessee has to pay "for all consequential damages and further indemnify Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals for all costs incurred by Jumping Joe's Bounce House Rentals incurred in enforcing the terms of the lease or in defending any claim or lawsuit arising out of the operation of said equipment, including the amount of any judgement, attorney's fees and costs." I am reading this as meaning that any cost Jumping Joe's wants, they can charge us. Essentially, if the bounce house is old and breaks and cost $1,500 to replace, instead of just paying $1,500 divided by the remaining useful life of the Bounce House. Jumping Joe's, based on the sentence after this, is the judge and jury and can make a claim that the cost to the company is $15,000. $1,500 for the bounce house, and $13,500 for legal fees, lost of business, staff time, the cost of the computer to write up the bill to us, hotel costs, meals, and whatever else frivolous charges they want to tack on. Since once again, they get to make the determination, "within its own discretion" they can say whatever they want, and we do not have the ability to challenge the decision because we forgo filing any lawsuit to solve the dispute.

In addition, Jumping Joe's could decide to file a lawsuit against us and even if they lose, we would be required to pay for the judgement, even if the judgement is in our favor, we have to pay ourselves and Jumping Joe's pays nothing. We would also have to pay for both parties attorney fees, even frivolous attorney fees, and any costs, like meals, travel, gifts, fun expenses, and whatever else they can think of. All because we sign a contract that states we will.

This was why I asked if this would be considered Unconscionability? That this section of the contract would not hold up in court and would be invalid in the eyes of the law? The cost of the rental is $315. However, I am concerned that if this company wanted to, they could take whatever they want because they get to make all the decisions not judge, arbitrator, or other legally acceptable method of solving conflict.

Or am I seriously looking too deep into this, and the law protects consumers against blatant unconscionable contract like this one?

I want to thank you all for your responses thus far and any in the future. All I am trying to do is have a bounce house for my son's 5th birthday party. We had to cancel his 4-year-old party last year because he was sick and we didn't know if it was COVID, luckily it wasn't. I want to make this special, but I also don't want to have the possibility of losing my house because of a contract that says a company can essentially steal any money they want from us and we can't take legal action against them.
 
Specific interpretation of a contract is beyond the scope of this, or any, internet forum. I suggest that you speak to an attorney.
 
If your spidy senses tingle after reading a contract, heed the warning, DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT.

Seek an alternative solution, as in throw the party at a venue that allows your guests to use devices installed on the site.

We never host parties at any of our homes.

When we do host a party, we do so at a venue that is equipped for such events.

I wish you and your son a most happy and safe birthday.

Most of all, you're wise to THINK about signing the contract BEFORE you've signed it, rather than after.
 
LoganIrisMommy said:
More the question is, is this part of the contract legally enforceable by law.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure everyone understood that as the "real" question.

LoganIrisMommy said:
One of the concerns was the part that the title states arbitration but arbitration is not mentioned in the body of the contract for this section. It just blanketly states that we "forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute" while at the same time saying we "will abide by the CA state laws". In California, there are many legal ways to solve disputes that are legal, arbitration and litigation are not the only methods.
Click to expand...

I'd have to research it, but I doubt that the reference to "arbitration" and the statement that the parties "will . . . forgo filing a lawsuit to solve the dispute" would be sufficient to warrant the granting of a motion to compel arbitration.

LoganIrisMommy said:
For this part of the contract, I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly. I am reading the portion that says Jumping Joe's gets to make the determination, "within its own discretion, that Lessee has failed, in any way, to observe or comply with the conditions of the lease,". To have the meaning that Jumping Joe's gets to decide if the contract is breached, no judge, no arbitrator, no mediator, or anyone else, only them, can decide if the contract is breached. Essentially whatever they say goes, they are the judge, jury, and executioner.
Click to expand...

That's what every party to every breach does, but a private party's determination regarding liability is legally meaningless. The company would still have to convince a court or arbitrator that it is right.
 
LoganIrisMommy said:
I also don't want to have the possibility of losing my house because of a contract that says a company can essentially steal any money they want from us and we can't take legal action against them.
Click to expand...

There is no question that the contract is poorly written but, make no mistake, it is written for the protection of ONLY Joe's Bounce House and does NOTHING to protect your interests.

If you don't feel comfortable with the terms get them changed (I doubt that will happen) or don't hire Joe's Bounce House. It's that simple.

Maybe you should just find another way of entertaining your soon to be 5 year old.

Chuck E Cheese still puts on birthday parties.

Birthday Party Packages | Chuck E. Cheese

Or hire a clown.

Or take him to Disneyland.
 
I knew the minute I mentioned clown, someone would hit me with the evil clown thing.

You didn't disappoint.

But, in all fairness to clowns, here are some nice, friendly, good natured clowns.

Emmett Kelly and his son Emmett Kelly Jr
Clarabelle
Bozo
Ronald McDonald
Marcel Marceau
Wavy Gravy - the official clown of the Grateful Dead
Charlie Chaplin - referred to himself as a clown
Dodo Delwynn - the clown portrayed by Red Skelton in "The Clown" (1953)
Otto Griebling - performed with the Ringling Bros circus
Lou Jacobs - also performed with the Ringling Bros circus
Glen Little - also performed with the Ringling Bros circus
Koko (out of the inkwell comes Koke the clown, the funniest clown that ever came to town)

Judge, you and I are old enough to remember Koko the clown.

 
On September 24, 1960, the children's TV institution Howdy Doody came to an end, and it was Clarabell the Clown who made sure we knew it was truly over.

Clarabell was an important cast member, though unlike the chatty puppet Howdy Doody and main host Buffalo Bob, Clarabell never uttered so much as ONE word.

In 13 years, that clown -- played by Bob Keeshan, Nick Nicholson and Lew Anderson -- never said a damn word.

But on the show's finale, after prodding by Bob, Clarabell turned to the camera and tearfully whispered, "Goodbye kids."

And suddenly, it was no longer Howdy Doody time, and never would be again.

Long before the Game of Thrones finale stunned the masses, there was the final episode of the 1950s phenomenon Howdy Doody that set the standard for how television shows would conclude throughout the future.

During an era when series would simply just end as if it was another episode, the 13-year-running program Howdy Doody was the first series to finish with a bang of significance with "Clarabell's Big Surprise" when only two words were spoken by the miming clown Clarabell who had not said one word up until that point.

Every TV-watching child of the 1950s should be able to tell you where they were when those last few seconds left them speechless.

Nothing lasts forever, kids.

I vividly recall the final show.

My sisters began to weep and sob.

I admit to a touch of sadness, because I'd been a loyal follower for a decade.



...
Howdy Doody, 1960: Clarabell The Clown Ends It With Two Words
...


e41c6ee5b4527b6d59e0f7e1d32099f4.jpg


clarabell2.jpg
....
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top