41–50 of 76 posts
For more information about arbitration courts, read this New York Times article:. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbit...
Also, you might want to use a non-mobile link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should be more specific if you want useful replies. Otherwise, people will chime in to soapbox on their pet constitutional issue.
This was in direct response to the article, in which Google Fiber's new policy strips users of their Constitutional rights.
Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate. The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter…
Consumers have not been taught how to properly negotiate and enter contracts, and companies creating the arbitration clauses almost always have the power to push back on changes until the consumer relents.
I wash shocked when I ordered a test Dell Ubuntu machine, took the time to read the EULA/TOS, and was appaled at their terms, which included waiving of constitutional right to a jury!
The real problem, the dark discussion we need to be having, is about the inequality of access to redress of greivance via the law. We live in a society that has created a system in which you must have money to pursue legal recourse, and in a world of increasing inequality, the fact is the port and middle class are increasingly railroaded by arbitration clauses and similar legalese understood by only the people who wrote it.
I'm not advocating for restriction of private terms of contract, but corporations are abusing their power in the equation to the detriment of the people, so lets not lose sight of the reality, as opposed to the theoritical situation lobbyists would have us believe.
As a proposed solution, I think contract law should be taught in highschool as core cirriculum. I have even recently added a section in my documentation for sysadmins to address the reading of eulas/tos, and signing of contracts.
Does anybody care about the Constitution anymore? It seems like every day I read an article about someone either going against the Constitution, or getting very close to denying its importance in the United States.
It's difficult to understand how such clause is even legal to begin with. It basically sets up a "private" justice system for non criminal cases. That's insane. I get it, there are difference sort of tribunals. But it shouldn't be up to the corporations to decide where justice is supposed to be served.
Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate. The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter…
The potential harm related to Internet access does not seem very high. It's fair to balance that against the cost of frivolous litigation. The market can sort this one out.
Comparing Google's to Comcast in this situation doesn't really feel right.
Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate. The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter…
The problem with this perspective is that it doesnt match reality. Consumers have not been taught how to properly negotiate and enter contracts, and companies creating the arbitration clauses almost always have the power to push back on changes until the consumer relents. I wash shocked when I ordered a test Dell Ubuntu machine, took the time to read the EULA/TOS, and was appaled at their terms, which included waivin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? To answer your question - yes, you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving his right to sue you for shooting him. However, the contract would be unenforceable, and he could sue you (for both shooting him and potentially for the contract - IIRC, that depends on the state). One of the things that…
> you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving [t]his right [...] However, the contract would be unenforceable I understand I can write any nonsense and sign it, probably because of freedom of expression or something. My point was whether that contract would be enforceable. If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.
Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate. The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter…
An asymmetrical legal and financial balance isn't even the real problem, it's that contracts from large companies are on paper non-negotiable with the real negotiation occurring is in court when the terms of the contract are contested. We already have some protections for people who agree to take-it-or-leave-it contracts but, to me, it's not terribly clear whether those protections extend to private arbitrators who might blindly rule on the letter of the contract.