201–210 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhat-serious question: If someone hands me a paper that says this, can't I just do the same and hand them a sheet that renders all arbitration bindings null and void?
You signed the paper the bank handed you. The bank is unlikely to sign the paper you hand them.
https://www.rt.com/business/man-outsmarts-banks-wins-court-2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is a situation where we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Class actions return money to wronged parties. That's good so we should remove the arbitration cruft that is preventing that.
I guess i don't think the situation was good! They didn't return anywhere near a good amount of money to wronged parties. Lawsuits were being settled for not even pennies on the dollar. (arbitration also isn't cruft, but it's definitely getting an undeserved bad rap) Actually, the situation i long for is before the creation of the LLC, where shareholders were responsible for paying for the corporations lawsuits. LLCs…
Er, what? Shareholders are not responsible for paying corporate liabilities (except in rare circumstances where the corporate form is part of a fraud). The creation of the LLC as a new form of business changed nothing in this regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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.
The US also has Qui Tam lawsuits, meaning on behalf of the king , one of the more well known versions are whistleblower cases. Though the whistleblower only receives a rather small percent (10% is common, but varies), these lawsuits are some of the largest judgments in history, in particular as related to illegal kickbacks in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. The common facts are the business is engaging…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And my point is that a person who reacts to a minor crash by begging you not to sue him is not even remotely representative of how things work here. You described "the most likely response" in Europe, as if it was somehow different in the US. It's not.
So, are you or are you not in agreement that monetary compensation after accidents (or crimes) is more likely to occur in the United States than in Europe regardless of the mechanism of getting such compensation (through the courts or through an insurance company)?
Class actions can be effective where the class members are relatively large, sophisticated entities. E.g. the data-breach class action brought by banks that is mentioned in the article. But in the consumer-protection space, we should consider alternatives. Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up s…
>Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up serving neither to compensate consumers nor really to deter illegal conduct. You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions. Class actions are an i…
I do find it gratifying to see VW employees being indicted. But the arrest of executives who commit wrongdoing is far too rare these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, are you or are you not in agreement that monetary compensation after accidents (or crimes) is more likely to occur in the United States than in Europe regardless of the mechanism of getting such compensation (through the courts or through an insurance company)?
I don't know, but it probably is as you say. I just dispute that a weirdo begging you not to sue him over a minor crash supports the idea.
http://www.personalinjurysandiego.org/personal-injury/statis...
Whether the man was a weirdo or not is a thing I have no knowledge about (and why you would have knowledge about it is a mystery to me) but it seems that he didn't exactly pull his fear out of thin air.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The legal arguments are simple, presumably if there are employees who burned themselves, they would have: a.) likely set the coffee temp themselves (above the recommended temp); b.) at least been aware of the temp and risk; and c.) presumably have some responsibility for spilling the coffee on themselves. These facts would remove intentional/reckless/gross negligence on the part of McDonalds.
And I already know the counter arguments; However, if I'm actually wrong feel free to show me an a single case of a McDonalds employee suing McDonald's in civil court outside of workers compensation laws as the result of scalding coffee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is a situation where we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Class actions return money to wronged parties. That's good so we should remove the arbitration cruft that is preventing that.
I guess i don't think the situation was good! They didn't return anywhere near a good amount of money to wronged parties. Lawsuits were being settled for not even pennies on the dollar. (arbitration also isn't cruft, but it's definitely getting an undeserved bad rap) Actually, the situation i long for is before the creation of the LLC, where shareholders were responsible for paying for the corporations lawsuits. LLCs…
You are a bit confused here. The liability shield for corporate shareholders is as old as the joint stock company, and older than the US.
The LLC is a newer business form that includes a similar liability shield for its members to the one corporations do for their shareholders, but differs in other mechanisms from both corporations or partnerships.
> IMHO, No better way to get wells fargo to stop doing illegal things than have the people who own X% be forced to pay for it.
Even without a liability shield, the shareholders personal finances would only be touched of the assets of the corporation itself were exhausted; while liabilities which would destroy a corporation and still leave an unpaid balance for unshielded shareholders do happen (see, MtGox for instance), none of Wells Fargo’s shenanigans have reached that level of proven liability (if they had, Wells Fargo would have gone into bankruptcy), so they wouldn't likely have been constrained by exposing shareholders to liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US also has Qui Tam lawsuits, meaning on behalf of the king , one of the more well known versions are whistleblower cases. Though the whistleblower only receives a rather small percent (10% is common, but varies), these lawsuits are some of the largest judgments in history, in particular as related to illegal kickbacks in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. The common facts are the business is engaging…
Can you believe the people of Florida rewarded the chief of HCA for defrauding the taxpayers of America, by electing him to be their governor!