They have a nasty bug where if you buy "all access" membership now for say June next year (set start date in June) you'll get free access until then. You actually can't pay for on-demand while you wait for your membership to start. But you can book desks for zero credits. However many parts of the app don't work and it seems the wifi doesn't work - but you can use guest wifi.
> They have a nasty bug where if you buy "all access" membership now for say June next year (set start date in June) you'll get free access until then. You actually can't pay for on-demand while you wait for your membership to start. But you can book desks for zero credits. However many parts of the app don't work and it seems the wifi doesn't work - but you can use guest wifi.
Good job posting this publicly on a thread I'm sure at least one WeWork corporate employee is reading.
Expect to find a charge on the credit card you put down for your June purchase for all the services you have used. It is 100% legal for them to bill you for their price mistakes. Check the terms and conditions.
You seem to be exceptionally confident about an area where that is very rarely legally the case. Secondarily, the TOC don't define necessarily what's legal or not.
Do you have a source for your claims here? They mentioned a contract beginning in June of next year, if the company fulfils more than the contract generally that would be upon them, though it may be grounds for termination of the contract.
If you have some relevant law or legal reference to back up your statements on the matter, I'd be interested in learning a bit more about it personally.
Thanks for taking the HN-style approach of trying to call BS on me in the most civil manner possible.
All the core elements of a contract are there: offer, acceptance, consideration, and exercise. By making use of the services early, OP is materially expressing their intent to exercise the contract early, which gives WeWork the right to take consideration in kind, per the terms of the original boilerplate contract.
(And yes, clickthrough or shrinkwrapped TOCs often do not constitute an enforceable contract, especially when one party has not expressed any actual intent to form any contract and the offering party does everything they can to obscure the TOC and its implications, per Specht v. Netscape. But there is clearly intent to form a contract by the customer here, which means the entire TOC is as valid and enforceable as a rental car contract people sign without reading.)
This goes by different names, one of which is "contract by acceptance" (more common in the UK). In the US, see [Uniform Commercial Code § 2-207](https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-207):
> (1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance ... operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms. [...]
> (3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act.
Let me put it this way: A customer signs a contract to pay a company a rate of $X per month for unlimited usage of the company's services. The customer agrees that the contracted services will be exercised by booking through the app. The customer initially informs the company they want to start using these services and paying the monthly fee in June. They provide a credit card and sign a contract that authorizes payment for services rendered on a monthly basis, rolling until canceled by either party with X days notice.
Then before June, the customer uses the app to book services, then actually makes use of those services. The company observes that the customer is using the app to make use of the services, for which there is normally no additional payment required. This lack of an additional payment is in line with the "all-access" subscription (and note the app states it in 'credits', not dollars). While the company also offers a per-hour rate, the customer does not make any attempt to communicate their intent to enter into a different contract to pay for these services by the hour.
What else should the company assume? The customer's behavior and prior contract clearly signals intent to exercise the contract earlier than originally communicated. The company then actually provides those services to the customer, who materially benefits from them, at cost to the company. The company then charges the customer for services rendered at the monthly all-access rate, starting at the first day they made use of the services without any additional payment.
And the fact that this is a "mistake" by the app is actually irrelevant. It is the same as if you had a similar agreement with a gym, and show up earlier than you requested. You check in with the human at the counter. They let you in without saying anything other than "Welcome!" The gym starts to bill you the monthly fee. You can't complain.
You're right that I maybe shouldn't have said 100%, because these things are ruled on by human judges and juries.
Edit: Another relevant concept is that contract law assumes parties are reasonable and acting in good faith. I'm pretty confident most judges and juries would think it is unreasonable for a person to expect to pay nothing for services that they already agreed are worth $X/mo. The fact that there are so many things broken with the customer experience if you do this one weird trick to get a free WeWork desk would be further evidence OP is acting in bad faith. I'm imagining how that cross-examination would go when OP is put on the witness stand to explain their state of mind.
I think new playgrounds are much better now than when I grew up in the 80s. The new ones in 80s did have some good things going for them but there is much more variety now and they look great.
Playgrounds passed a point somewhere in the late 90s where suddenly it was cheap enough to manufacture quite interesting climbing things, and so you suddenly went from the basic swings + slide + weird steel tower thing to complex adventure sets.
For the best part of 20 years I felt chocolate as a gift was a poor choice. But a month or so ago someone gave me some figs with the inside replaced with chocolate and it was such a novel gift (for me) that I'd say it is the best gift I got in years. Novelty is king for me.
Similar story with wine. Someone went to the effort of buying me a bottle that you can't get in USA from my home country and it was really special.
