Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#41

Post by tdb7893 »

rwmj wrote: post #39
tdb7893 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't they actually too big to fail, though? I thought that multiple huge American banks failing would've made the recession a ton worse because banks would've failed and some large companies wouldn't have been able to make payroll and it all could've snowballed

The trick is to let them fail, then rapidly sift through the pieces and sell anything off which still has value. Even failing banks have plenty of good loans. Ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government because the general public cannot evaluate the risk of a bank collapsing. There's probably a case for some protection for companies that hold accounts -- although companies should really be awar…

That makes sense. If the government were able to do all of that super fast it might be been fine. I just don't get all of the hate for the bailouts. I know it feel's like to many people the banks sort of "got away with it" but the bailout both stopped any bad effects from failed banks and the government made money off of it so it seems like a win-win for society in my perspective

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#42

Post by coldcode »

It would seem to me that since WD offers free arbitration the prudent thing in this case would be for every single person affected to file for it on the same day and simultaneously withdraw their money leaving only $1 in the account. A bank run and 100,000 filed cases would make for a fine mess.

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#43

Post by PretzelFisch »

rwmj wrote: post #39
tdb7893 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't they actually too big to fail, though? I thought that multiple huge American banks failing would've made the recession a ton worse because banks would've failed and some large companies wouldn't have been able to make payroll and it all could've snowballed

The trick is to let them fail, then rapidly sift through the pieces and sell anything off which still has value. Even failing banks have plenty of good loans. Ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government because the general public cannot evaluate the risk of a bank collapsing. There's probably a case for some protection for companies that hold accounts -- although companies should really be awar…

Isn't this happened with many of the forced sales like WAMU, merrill lynch, countrywide?

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#44

Post by jessaustin »

tdb7893 wrote: post #41
rwmj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is to let them fail, then rapidly sift through the pieces and sell anything off which still has value. Even failing banks have plenty of good loans. Ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government because the general public cannot evaluate the risk of a bank collapsing. There's probably a case for some protection for companies that hold accounts -- although companies should really be awar…

That makes sense. If the government were able to do all of that super fast it might be been fine. I just don't get all of the hate for the bailouts. I know it feel's like to many people the banks sort of "got away with it" but the bailout both stopped any bad effects from failed banks and the government made money off of it so it seems like a win-win for society in my perspective

When financial catastrophes are "bailed out", the main effect is not the money gained or lost by the involved parties. Rather, the main effect is the inevitable identical-but-larger financial catastrophes that will result when rational bankers compare speculative upsides to presumably bailoutable downsides.

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#45

Post by [deleted] »

t0mas88 wrote: post #32

In the Netherlands a bank got destroyed a few years ago by a single person starting a media campaign for a bank-run. This was done in response to "shady practices" on the mortgage side of the bank. He got people to withdraw over 600 million from DSB Bank in a few days, which caused the bank to run out of liquidity and forced them to freeze accounts. This meant they lost all trust in the market and needed to ask other…

[deleted]

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#46

Post by tonybako »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #27
Lazare wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to a lawyer in your local jurisdiction. :) But offhand: > Is there anything in the law about good faith in contracts? Not in the sense you mean, no. Generally speaking, if they sign it in bad faith (that is, with no intent to comply), and they do not comply, that would be fraud (ie, a crime). If they sign it in good faith (that is, with an intent to comply) but later do not comply, that's breach of contract (ie,…

Aahh, ok. So say I sign a contract with a co-founder to develop an app. This co-founder is secretly part of my competition and he steals my source code for his company. That would be fraud?

Not necessarily. Typically your contract will be with the company you co-founded. Your co-founder is entering your company into a contract with you by signing as an authorized officer on behalf of the company. If that contract assigns the IP to your company, your cofounder is stealing your company's IP. If the contract says the source code is your IP (and perhaps licenses its use to the company for some permitted purpose), then your co-founder is stealing from you.

Now, if you can show the sole purpose of him forming the business with you was to steal your source code, then that's fraud.

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#47

Post by [deleted] »

gaius wrote: post #33
t0mas88 wrote: post #32

In the Netherlands a bank got destroyed a few years ago by a single person starting a media campaign for a bank-run. This was done in response to "shady practices" on the mortgage side of the bank. He got people to withdraw over 600 million from DSB Bank in a few days, which caused the bank to run out of liquidity and forced them to freeze accounts. This meant they lost all trust in the market and needed to ask other…

In the Netherlands a bank got destroyed a few years ago by a single person starting a media campaign for a bank-run. This was done in response to "shady practices" on the mortgage side of the bank Happened here in the UK too. Northern Rock was in trouble but companies get in trouble all the time; what killed it and precipitated a full-blown financial crisis here was certain journalists revelling in the downfall of ca…

[deleted]

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#48

Post by jessaustin »

logicallee wrote: post #40
brainfire wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we take as true that our legal system doesn't work and is host to numerous "frivolous lawsuits that can cost companies literally hundreds of thousands or millions of legal fees" then I can understand favoring arbitration as a way to protect companies. However, I don't think that premise is true. I trust the open, standardized, and (mostly) consistent courts to fairly apply the law. While some lawsuits seem frivolo…

well take a simple case. divorce proceedings are messy, with this in mind when you met your next great love, suppose that you wanted some kind of simple prenup with them, given that you and they are both great partner and very cooperative. if you did think it a good idea to sign a prenup, you wouldn't both agree to mediation/arbitration below any explicit terms about what you both intended going into it? It seems che…

Prenuptial agreements may not be the best example for your argument. Ask any divorce lawyer, and you'll learn that they're basically a legal fiction used to fool the rich that they can safely marry the poor.

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#49

Post by cnnsucks »

logicallee wrote: post #34

perhaps due to the clickbaity title, it seems people are reading "agree to arbitration" as "agree that Well Fargo's internal decisions are final and waive their right to legal remedy." let's firstly identify that yes, this is how people in the thread take "agree to arbitration." Next let me ask: I did a quick Google search, https://www.google.com/search?q=does+arbitration+always+favo... expecting to see that, for exa…

This is worse than click bait; the headline is a falsehood designed to provoke outrage. WF is NOT arguing that customers are bound by forged signatures, despite what this headline implies. This is Fake News making the rounds. Good job HN.

Re: Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

#50

Post by logicallee »

jessaustin wrote: post #48
logicallee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well take a simple case. divorce proceedings are messy, with this in mind when you met your next great love, suppose that you wanted some kind of simple prenup with them, given that you and they are both great partner and very cooperative. if you did think it a good idea to sign a prenup, you wouldn't both agree to mediation/arbitration below any explicit terms about what you both intended going into it? It seems che…

Prenuptial agreements may not be the best example for your argument. Ask any divorce lawyer, and you'll learn that they're basically a legal fiction used to fool the rich that they can safely marry the poor.

I'm not arguing with you, just clarifying: my example was marrying an equal partner, without marked difference in richness and probably with some property on either side already -- surely you don't agree that even when parties are very amicable they cannot follow a simple plain-word prenup, or that nobody has used arbitration or mediation successfully to resolve minor disputes when they're otherwise trying to cooperate?

I'd be shocked at the latter but, if that is your knowledge then I'll take it. Are you basically saying that nobody has ever used arbitration the way it's written on the tin? (a low-cost way to have a third party mediate in case of minor disagreement?)

why does arbitration even exist in your opinion? (both in theory and practice).

someone's been downvoting me, but I'm just asking open-ended questions. I don't have a strong preconception myself. it's clear that in the rest of this article discussion thread, people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants." is this your experience too? (in such strong terms?)

Post reply on HN