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

61–70 of 76 posts

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

#61

Post by logicallee »

cnnsucks wrote: post #56
logicallee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a moderator! I just wanted to welcome you to our community - I agree with what you've written, and I hope you'll stick around and play by our rules: this is why this place is great, because people engage in civil discourse (for the most part). I agree with the gist of what you wrote above - but you could have said it without the demeaning tone and it would be taken seriously (including changing the headline as necessary - or even burying the whole story). I agree with you and hope you'll stay and contribute here, I recommend under a neutral name.

see also:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

and

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#63

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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…

You say "ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government", and then go on to say something to the effect of 'oh yeah, and these other things which I think are good, but screw big companies, then can get fucked'.

Which seems to translate, at least in my mind, to 'banks should be too big to fail, but only in the ways I like'.

It's not clear, under your scheme, how we would draw the line between companies that "should be aware" of the risks and how they would mitigate them? Do we have to have insurance policies against our bank deposits? But who pays for that?

Maybe I'm not reading with enough goodwill here though. Perhaps by "the government should protect" you mean to say something like 'there should be laws / regulations making it so that banks shonky investment dealings can't affect depositors accounts, at least for some class(es) of depositors' - in which case I agree.

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

#64

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

tdb7893 wrote: post #57
caseysoftware wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the global financial system was built on a blockchain, couldn't we just fork and rollback the bad transactions?

But more seriously, why did the resolution have to be a bailout. Could someone with the authority, and here I mean The Government, because they've got the guns, just tell the banks to rollback the wonky transactions?

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

#65

Post by EdHominem »

logicallee wrote: post #50
jessaustin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coopera…

> why does arbitration even exist in your opinion?

It's a scam that was invented to keep the inventor out of the trouble they knew their shitty actions would cause for them.

You don't need a contract for voluntary arbitration, you only need it to force someone into it when it's not in their best interests.

> people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants."

The company is the party with the lawyers, and which forces the clause into the contracts. Of course they feel it benefits them.

I highly doubt they're wrong...

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

#66

Post by logicallee »

EdHominem wrote: post #65
logicallee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coopera…

> why does arbitration even exist in your opinion? It's a scam that was invented to keep the inventor out of the trouble they knew their shitty actions would cause for them. You don't need a contract for voluntary arbitration, you only need it to force someone into it when it's not in their best interests. > people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants." The company is the party with the lawyer…

aren't lawyers usually not allowed at arbitration? (isn't that part of the whole point)?

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

#67

Post by CWuestefeld »

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…

I think the article is opaque on the terms of that waiver. W-F seems to be taking the stance that the signature applies to the entirety of the customer's relationship with the bank - sign this once for any account, and it applies to actions across all your accounts.

BoingBoing and others are taking the position that the waiver only applies to actions relating to the specific account that was signed for, each account standing separately.

The latter approach seems more sensible to me, but really it all comes down to the language of the statement that they (really) signed, and how courts have chosen to interpret that.

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

#68

Post by jpallas »

logicallee wrote: post #53
brainfire wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.

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

#69

Post by jpallas »

logicallee wrote: post #66
EdHominem wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why does arbitration even exist in your opinion? It's a scam that was invented to keep the inventor out of the trouble they knew their shitty actions would cause for them. You don't need a contract for voluntary arbitration, you only need it to force someone into it when it's not in their best interests. > people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants." The company is the party with the lawyer…

aren't lawyers usually not allowed at arbitration? (isn't that part of the whole point)?

You may be thinking of small claims courts, where some states don't allow lawyers. Arbitration follows whatever rules the arbitration organization chooses.

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

#70

Post by logicallee »

jpallas wrote: post #68
logicallee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.

but it says here: (I googled the phrase without quotes "can you sue after binding arbitration")

http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbi...

>A decision on a binding arbitration cannot be appealed or overturned unless there are rare circumstances present (fraud, bias or other inappropriate actions on the part of the arbitration attorney). After the decision is rendered, the case is over.

The things that are the main worry here - bias - would be explicit grounds for throwing out binding arbitration. So I still don't follow how "binding arbitration" means "whatever the company wants, and you're SOL on your side."

It would be a clear case of bias if that were the case, and based on what I've just read would allow you recourse to a normal lawsuit...?

On the other hand, why are the decisions of unbiased arbitration worrysome? I don't understand what the problem people have with it is, and so far it hasn't been expressed clearly to me. Maybe you can help, jpallas?

Just trying to understand here. THanks

Post reply on HN