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

Let Consumers Sue Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#171

Post by thejerz »

s73ver_ wrote: post #127
necessity wrote: post #92

Don't do business with companies that have such contracts? If there is no choice in a given sector then the issue is a monopoly not the contracts.

That's not usually a choice, and it's not due to monopoly. Just about every company out there is adding these clauses to their contracts. And consumers have no power to combat them.

You have the power not to enter into the agreement. No one is forcing you to download a song from iTunes or open an account at Wells Fargo. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the agreement.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#172

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #170
mikeash wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out. The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for some…

(1) https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=whip... (2) his lawyer did contact us. WW.com has had a number of such threats of lawsuits for all kinds of reasons, exclusively these were by Americans and they were all looking to get money out of us. In business circles this is simply seen as a cost of doing business in the USA, if you are large enough to be visible you will get sued.

I don't understand what that google link is supposed to demonstrate. Is there something in the results showing that people's insurance doesn't protect them?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#173

Post by lr4444lr »

will_brown wrote: post #53
preinheimer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s Some notes: - Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong. - The number…

I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid; 2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by…

(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#174

Post by delbel »

monksy wrote: post #95
flexie wrote: post #51

In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3... Consumers can usually sue corporations at a court in their own jurisdiction. Many European countries also allow class action law suits. Yet, we have few law suits against corporations. There are other reasons for this: - consumers are not awarded punitive damages, - court fees are higher (u…

> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.

Sometimes this works for me if I end up in consumer hell. Be short, professional, to the point, and give all factual evidence. Make it easy for them to work with you, and you will get a response. Also the Office Of The Controller of Currency always responds to my overdraft charges from Wells Fargo. I make sure that it is extremely expensive to screw me over.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#175

Post by dwyerm »

wongarsu wrote: post #116
kijin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You signed the paper the bank handed you. The bank is unlikely to sign the paper you hand them.

You can change the contract before signing it, then give it back to them and wait for them to accept it (either explicitly or implicitly). Works in most jurisdictions since both parties have to agree to the contract.

That's difficult to do when your cell provider presents the contract on an LCD screen, or via a web page.

On the other hand, the car dealership refused to allow me to redline their contract. I was fortunate that I could -- and did -- walk away, and I was able to find another dealer that didn't yet have a MBA clause.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#176

Post by will_brown »

lr4444lr wrote: post #173
will_brown wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid; 2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by…

(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.

It's a good question, But the employees would have no right to sue McDonald's for any damages in civil court (negligence for example), and they would be limited to workers compensation claims/benefits.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#177

Post by sageikosa »

gwbas1c wrote: post #81
dclowd9901 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. Or is that what your summary statement is intended to elicit? (tough to tell, as it could mean either/or is the better system)

Looks like the EU system is able to better resolve consumer issues without lawsuits; and is better at avoiding frivolous lawsuits. The article doesn't discuss the American problem of frivolous lawsuits.

Tort reform. Some things should be kicked out of the courts at the front door by a legal bouncer.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#178

Post by dwyerm »

jemaddux wrote: post #122
wimgz wrote: post #14

“only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” A bit off topic here but this is IMHO a great challenge for AI: making a lawyer affordable for the masses when they are bullied by banks, airlines, etc. If it costs you $5 , why not sue for $30 ?

Those are just the costs for you to sue ($5) and potentially what the company will lose ($30). You need to factor in that bringing a court case costs the taxpayer some amount of money as well which is presumably more than $35 to hear the case. The usual way to deal with a $30 fee that wasn't valid in my experience is request a chargeback on your credit card and dare the company to come get it from you. That works oft…

That sounds nice, but then they just send the bill to collections, and it becomes a negative entry in your credit report.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#179

Post by dragonwriter »

will_brown wrote: post #176
lr4444lr wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.

It's a good question, But the employees would have no right to sue McDonald's for any damages in civil court (negligence for example), and they would be limited to workers compensation claims/benefits.

Employees do not have no rights to sue for workplace injuries; intentional or reckless acts, and perhaps gross negligence, may be actionable even on situations where mere simple negligence would be subsumed into workers comp coverage.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#180

Post by jacquesm »

mikeash wrote: post #172
jacquesm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=whip... (2) his lawyer did contact us. WW.com has had a number of such threats of lawsuits for all kinds of reasons, exclusively these were by Americans and they were all looking to get money out of us. In business circles this is simply seen as a cost of doing business in the USA, if you are large enough to be visible you will get sued.

I don't understand what that google link is supposed to demonstrate. Is there something in the results showing that people's insurance doesn't protect them?

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process.

For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter.

In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.

Nobody would even think of being sued, misfortune in Europe rarely leads to some kind of civil lawsuit here (though, if you're drunk or under the influence of drugs or negligent it is of course very well possible there will be a criminal case brought against you).

Post reply on HN