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

51–60 of 76 posts

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

#51

Post by brainfire »

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…

You seem like you might have this backwards. This isn't a clause creating the option of arbitration in the face of an otherwise guaranteed trip to court - you already have that option. This is a clause removing the option of going to court.

Yes, costs can be kept down by requiring things stay out of court. This is at the expense of some of the normal guarantees you can expect from our court system.

If that's okay for you, and you're in an equal bargaining position with the other party, go wild. You're not in an equal bargaining position with the banking industry when a majority of banks start adding the clause to their T&C.

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

#52

Post by logicallee »

cnnsucks wrote: post #49
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.

you use really strong language (even in your username) and since it's just 27 days old, perhaps could make another one.

with that said, I think if you suggested an alternative title (under your handle or a different one) that better reflects the contents of the article, the mods would be inclined to change it. They often do - and clickbait titles are explicitly against HN policy :)

so go ahead and make a suggested title change, under your current or a different HN name. thanks.

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

#53

Post by logicallee »

brainfire wrote: post #51
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…

You seem like you might have this backwards. This isn't a clause creating the option of arbitration in the face of an otherwise guaranteed trip to court - you already have that option. This is a clause removing the option of going to court. Yes, costs can be kept down by requiring things stay out of court. This is at the expense of some of the normal guarantees you can expect from our court system. If that's okay for…

aren't there limits on the enforceability of arbitration? meaning if people are REALLY unhappy with the arbitrated decision, can't they sue anyway?

what I mean is, isn't arbitration in a sense always "voluntary", because you can always sue after, if you really don't like it? Thanks.

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

#54

Post by caseysoftware »

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

If it's a win-win, then it should be okay - even good! - for the banks+government to do it again. After all, everyone made money and the economy only almost collapsed, not actually.

Regardless of the actual dollar amounts changed hands, what the US Federal government demonstrated was that risky - even illegal - behavior will be covered and some losses will be covered. It means that next time (and there will be one), we should assume the risks and losses will be even bigger.

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

#55

Post by Programmatic »

It is despicable to me that citizens can be denied their right to access legal remedy by companies that won't deliver services to individuals without them agreeing to binding arbitration. Access to courts seems like it should be the cornerstone of society and should not be allowed to be removed so easily.

The appeal of arbitration for a pair of similarly sophisticated entities that have the ability to vet the clauses of the contract is obvious. But the potential for abuse with one large organization picking the arbiter and a lot of unsophisticated individuals trying their luck against them is pretty obvious too.

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

#56

Post by cnnsucks »

logicallee wrote: post #52
cnnsucks wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you use really strong language (even in your username) and since it's just 27 days old, perhaps could make another one. with that said, I think if you suggested an alternative title (under your handle or a different one) that better reflects the contents of the article, the mods would be inclined to change it. They often do - and clickbait titles are explicitly against HN policy :) so go ahead and make a suggested ti…

Changing the headline on HN doesn't redeem this; you'll still being linking the boingboing story with the same false headline. Just delete it and be more careful in the future.

As for my username, that's your call: ban it or don't. I'll call out fake stories with this account or some other either way.

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

#57

Post by tdb7893 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #54
tdb7893 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it's a win-win, then it should be okay - even good! - for the banks+government to do it again. After all, everyone made money and the economy only almost collapsed, not actually. Regardless of the actual dollar amounts changed hands, what the US Federal government demonstrated was that risky - even illegal - behavior will be covered and some losses will be covered. It means that next time (and there will be one),…

But the current system was insufficient to stop the previous failure, too. Wouldn't bailing them out short term and then adding some regulation long term be a sufficient solution?

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

#58

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

Lazare wrote: post #25
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixed the link above! Can I pester you with one more question? Is there anything in the law about good faith in contracts? Say, I sign a contract with a private school for my son's education. (Note, this is a ridiculous scenario) that includes binding arbitration. If I find that a teacher has been sexually abusing him and the administration tried to cover it up, would I be restricted from a lawsuit and only allowed b…

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,…

But why?

If one can prove that a party premeditated and willfully went against the terms of the contract in order to deceive the other party and profited from this deceit while also breaking laws, what is the legal reasoning behind calling it a breach instead of fraud?

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

#59

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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…

I don't see that happening in the U.S. This person's campaign would be subject to a flurry of DMCA takedown notices[0] and mafia style legal threats.

[0] Legal or not.

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

#60

Post by JustSomeNobody »

kutkloon7 wrote: post #31

The article is wrong. Wells fargo says customers gave up their right to sue by signing up for an account, which is far more defendable from a legal point of view. Unfortunately, this is common practice and it also shows one of the biggest problems of the western world. It is quite profitable for a company to screw over customers. Just discourage them as much as possible to go to court by letting them sign a large pag…

> It is quite profitable for a company to screw over customers.

Because companies are beholden to investors and not customers.

Post reply on HN