system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I should be given a chance to nullify any contract if the company I signed with gets bought out

Part of signing a contract is choosing to do business with a specific company. If the terms of the contract are equal between two competitors, I may choose CorpA instead of CorpB. I may do this for various reasons such as believing that CorpA has better commitment to my community or operates in a more ethical manner.

Let's say I sign a 5 year service contract with CorpA. Two years into the agreement, CorpB buys out CorpA.

I disagree with CorpB's philosophy and don't trust them to faithfully execute the remainder of the contract. I should be given a one-time opportunity to nullify the contract with no penalty provisions.

This should be ingrained into basic contract law. Some may try to change my view by arguing that this provision may be written into the contract. I believe on too many cases, the contract bargaining power is greatly unequal and in favor of the company writing the contract. For this reason, arguing that these terms should be negotiated into the contract will not change my view. 

Change my view why this should not apply to all contracts.
gpt
The problem is many contracts are front loaded or back loaded... and that "nullify" gets complicated.

So let's say you buy a house and sign a mortgage with Bank A.

Later on, 5 years into your 30 year mortgage, Bank B buys Bank A.

How would you nullify that contract?  Let's say you've paid about 7% of your principal down, the housing market has tanked a bit, and you now have $120,000 of debt for a house valued at $108,000. You can't nullify it by returning the house; Bank A never owned it. You can't just negate the debt, or nobody would ever loan for houses again. 

In short, most service clauses have exit penalties. If you feel strongly enough about your belief that Corp B shouldn't have your money, then pay the penalties and get out.

Also, contract deals often front load benefit to the consumer for long term gain for the business (we give you a free phone, you have service with us for 2 years). Allowing void essentially allows anyone to get the free phone, then back out with no penalty (because the contract break penalty is the remaining price of the phone).

There are so many ways that what you are saying would have to be regulated, for so little gain, and so much risk, that at the end of the day, what you want here isn't worth the risk of destabilizing the economy.