MemberSince99 wrote:Good response, but it is the truth, seriously. What I wrote. As a lawyer, you can't be too thrilled about binding arbitration I wouldn't think. It screws consumers and also screws the attorneys who might represent the consumers. Or do you support it?
And as far as that goes I've been thinking for some time the only way we will ever get the corruption out of this government is in fact a revolution. Since we are too meek and timid even to protest anymore, and we know very well what they do to those who dare to try it, the chances of that happening are roughly the odds that I'll win the lottery this week without buying a ticket. So no need to worry that the people's republic of the united states is coming to a location near you anytime soon.
People still protest. There were a large number of arrests yesterday of people who chained themselves to the White House gates to protest the Keystone XL pipeline.
If the scale of protest matches the scale of the injustice, change is possible. The CFPB is a good start.
As to binding arbitration, I'm not a fan. When I arrived at law school, I thought I was a smart guy, reading things before signing them. A release before getting ski bindings mounted? Ah, but what are the terms? Since then, I've learned that you really have two choices - sign the papers or go without the product or service you want.
But, as a thought experiment, consider why all of those contracts and releases exist: someone before you sued the company, or one like it, for some reason or another, and the company decided it didn't want to deal with that anymore. Sure, some of those suits were legitimate, but some were entirely frivolous. Why did the plaintiffs in the frivolous lawsuit sue? Maybe the company didn't provide a level of service that met their ridiculous expectations. Maybe they were scam artists looking for a quick settlement. Maybe they were impoverished and saw it as a way out of the poorhouse. Regardless, those contract and releases exist because someone before us sued.
I'm defending a guy right now in a lawsuit that would make an average juror laugh. He partnered with another guy to start a co-op business selling medical marijuana. He sold three times as much product as his partner. About three months after they opened, the other guy assaulted him, took the cash register, the phone line, and the checkbook, removed him from the bank account, and disappeared. My client started a new MMJ business without him and became very successful. Now, he's being sued for half of his business because the other guy thinks he's entitled to it. He's been unemployed since the assault and lives in his brother's house. They had no written agreement about the business. Once bitten, twice shy. You better believe my client will never do business without a strong contract again.
Same thing goes for banks, Facebook, Apple, and everyone else. There's a classic case involving Hewlett Packard and the contracts they included with their computers. The computers were shipped with a contract inside the box that became binding upon opening the box. Yes, you read that right: to read the contract, you had to open the box, but if you open the box, you were bound. It's called an "adhesion contract." Those are illegal. But, they did it because they didn't want to be sued.
So, while I don't like it, I get it. If you could get away with it, you would do it too.
[RIGHT][size=100]- Sapphire Preferred - Freedom - Ink - Platinum - Everyday Preferred -[/size]