Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Two recent Supreme Court rulings have deeply undercut centuries-old public rights by empowering businesses to avoid any threat of private lawsuits or class actions (through the use of mandatory arbitration language added to legal contracts and consent forms). The decisions culminate a 30-year trend during which the judiciary, including initially some prominent liberal jurists, has moved to eliminate courts as a means for ordinary Americans to uphold their rights against companies. The result is a world where corporations can evade accountability and effectively skirt swaths of law, pushing their growing power over their consumers and employees past a tipping point.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"Mandatory arbitration is a basic threat to our democracy," says Deepak Gupta, who argued the 2011 AT and T case before the Supreme Court. "This isn't about us all getting our $30 checks when a company has ripped us off. It's about laws that Congress passes being enforceable. The Supreme Court is allowing corporations to overturn law made by people we elect."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As with many of America's legal traditions, our right to sue was born of a deep skepticism of concentrated power. Early Americans recognized that their ability to bring civil suits against politically connected wrongdoers would lessen their dependency on often-corrupt government officials. Following ancient British traditions, the Founders also enshrined the right to a jury trial in the Seventh Amendment, while preserving the principle, dating back to the 1267 Statute of Marlborough, that all trials be open to the public. Recognition of these rights reflected a fundamental awareness that laws created in a democratic society would be meaningless unless citizens also ensured their fair enforcement.

In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which recognized a limited use of arbitration as a way for businesses to speedily resolve disagreements with each other outside of courts. Some officials were wary that expanded use of arbitration might, as one put it, let "the powerful people … come in and take away the rights of the weaker ones." But the business lobby assured them that arbitration would only be used between equally sophisticated companies, and only if both parties agreed. But starting with a series of decisions in the 1980s, unlikely bedfellows on the Supreme Court would steer us down an entirely new path. In 2011, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split, blessed AT&T's contract, opening the door for companies to ban class actions routinely in their fine print. This time around (in 2013), the same five-judge majority ruled that class-action bans in arbitration contracts were legal -- even when they left citizens with no recourse at all.


I sit here dumbfounded on how we citizens are so often ignorant on how certain rights that affect citizens every single day have been compromised by the law creators who sit on our Supreme Court. I'm sure et_al will be along to share some knowledge, but on the surface I'm having a hard time understanding how something actually articulated in the Constitution has been overruled by laws originating in Congress seemingly trumping other laws passed by Congress with the Constitution finishing last.

We now truly live in a country where corporations retain specific rights normally reserved for corporal citizens yet they've convinced the Supreme Court that they have the right to not be sued by a group of plaintiffs and that every citizen is responsible for understanding that by doing business with these "people" is implied consent to settle any grievance literally one-on-one.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-24 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That was a depressing read.

Thanks, Tony. Nice post.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-25 01:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice post Tony. With this subject I have a lot of sentiment.

I can quibble with the graphs and some of the conclusions but generally agree that arbitration law is out of kilter. That said, it's a statutory problem not constitutional.

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-25 03:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That said, it's a statutory problem not constitutional.

Could you explain simply how statutes have usurped the 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury and, of course, how the SCOTUS has morphed a 1925 Act into the obvious biased reality that the empowered have not only squelched the ability for aggrieved parties to join together in taking legal action, but also these proceeding now occur behind publicly-closed doors and without open dissemination of the facts and counterfactuals established during the arbitration?

And lastly, what recourse does Congress have to reign this practice back short of another constitutional amendment severely limiting the scope of mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts?

Thanks in advance.

PS: Is this perhaps the clearest case of the SCOTUS actually making law from the bench, or is it just an overly broad discretion to interpret Congress' intent even when language exists seemingly expressing the practical limits that Congress -- and it's very real fear of excess and domination by the empowered or the powerless -- articulated at the time the original legislation was passed to assist business versus business litigation?

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"...over the powerless..."

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"...what recourse does Congress have to reign this practice back..."

Or, alternatively, what incentive does Congress have?

#6 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-06-25 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6

The slow creep began with a 1983 case, Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Construction. Though arbitration wasn't the central issue at play, the Supreme Court used its opinion to offer a radically novel interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice William Brennan -- a leader of the Court's liberal wing -- declared that the FAA reflected a "federal policy favoring arbitration." The idea that Congress had intended arbitration as preferable to courts rather than just as an alternative hadn't been aired before. Still, Brennan's language was clear and decisive -- and future judges would lean heavily on it as they razed the walls that had kept arbitration in its place.

Two successive decisions accelerated what might have been a brief and quirky deviation into a major turning point. In 1984, the Supreme Court heard a case brought in California by 7-Eleven franchisees against their parent company, Southland, which had included in their contracts a binding arbitration clause. California outlawed these clauses, recognizing that the franchisees rarely had the power to negotiate these terms. Yet Southland boldly argued that its contract overrode the state's law. Drawing on Brennan's unusual interpretation from the previous year -- that Congress had intended a "federal policy favoring arbitration" -- a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court ruled for Southland, eroding the power of states to regulate how companies use arbitration.

In a striking dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative, berated the majority for ignoring legislative history. "Today's decision is unfaithful to congressional intent, unnecessary, and … inexplicable," she wrote. "Although arbitration is a worthy alternative to litigation, today's exercise in judicial revisionism goes too far."


Congress' "incentive" would be to restore the intent of the 1925 Congress when they wrote the law in the first place. Without a deeper understanding of nuance I might be ignorant of, it appears that Justice Brennan legislated a unique interpretation of the law in his decision that became the rationale for the inevitable creep which has tacitly closed many court doors to individual people seeking redress of their grievances against wealthier, more powerful entities.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its very sad that people who have lifetime posts to an esteemed and very well compensated position still feel the need to sell out. But I guess its not surprising. They're sticking to the behaviors that got them there.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-25 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

#8

I find it extremely hypocritical that our current SC jurists -- who profess to defer to the Constitution's language -- so easily find basis to continually limit or eliminate protections expressly legislated to protect individuals from the immense power of government and private interests which only exist by the blessings and laws enacted by the elected representatives of the very people now exploited and abused by their own allowed creations.

For a document written to limit the power of the powerful, the Constitution to now be interpreted as basically an unfettered pathway for non-corporeal supremacy over actual flesh-and-blood, taxpaying citizens of this nation is the ultimate in unintentioned irony and a source of abject disgust. In too many cases, the law doesn't protect the powerless; it further empowers the already powerful toward our entire society's detriment.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

"In too many cases, the law doesn't protect the powerless; it further empowers the already powerful toward our entire society's detriment."

Damn! Tony's right! This behemoth of a federal government is way, way too big and too powerful and completely neuters the Constitution with its lawlessness. Good call, Tony.

#10 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

The threat to our rights and freedoms doesn't come from the left or right. It comes from pure unadulterated corporate greed that has come to own our politicians and politicize our courts.

#11 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-25 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#10

The federal government is certainly too large and too pervasive in some areas and I don't believe anyone has ever denied this reality. However, many of government's problems fester because those who incessantly rail against government's size refuse to acknowledge that today's government is asked to do far more than ever before since there are far more people and problems which are not being addressed - or are being exacerbated - under the status quo.

This case has nothing to do with the growth of government since we still have 9 SCOTUS jurists handing down these decisions. Congress passed legislation and expressed it's limitations and yet the justices have usurped the will of Congress and created exceptions that harm citizens to the benefit of corporations. On this point, it has little to do with the size of government and everything to do with judicial overreach.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This case has nothing to do with the growth of government since we still have 9 SCOTUS jurists handing down these decisions."

I musta missed it but when did the SC divorce itself from the federal government...or is it still a part? Being a constitutionalist, I never saw where the federal government ever had any business getting involved in something like Obamacare for instance. But then, you're probably glad we HAD a SC to make it possible to be put into practice. You like THAT one, didn't you? I find ANY form of big government, federal, state, local...whatever, to be oppressive.

#13 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-25 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

The threat to our rights and freedoms doesn't come from the left or right. It comes from pure unadulterated corporate greed that has come to own our politicians and politicize our courts.

#11 | Posted by Robson

And that is because of one thing: PRIVATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

That is how corporations and special interests get the government to serve them instead of serving citizens.

The only solution is public election funding. That would make every other problem in america suddenly FIXABLE.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Personally, I dont think publicly funding elections is quite the answer. I think that it starts with observant voters. Unfortunately, when the members of Congress themselves dont know what they're voting on, how can you expect voters too.

Also, we need to move change our criteria for electing senators and congressmen. Senators should be chosen as they used to, by state governments. It only makes sense for a few reasons.

1. They dont have a broad and out of touch constituency.
2. They bring representation of state governments into the legislative process and would protect their interests. That nonsense in California wouldnt fly if the Senators of that state had recourse to challenge the SC on its ruling by revoking its authority to rule as it did.
3. The Senator's constituents would be professionally competent to observe their actions. In other words, it would be alot harder to pull the wool over their constituents eyes.

#15 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-06-25 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Creepy.

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-25 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 still NW.

As a person I should be unsueable if corporations are people,too, my friend.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Second step is to make our Congressional districts smaller. If you dont have millions of constituents, then it wouldnt be necessary to raise millions of dollars. It would be easier to take your case directly to the people, and this would benefit both the authentic left and authentic right.

The reason that we have these problems is because, for all the talk, we really dont have any diversity in our government. We have the Democrats, and the Republicans. Having a larger legislature would introduce real diversity, permit the entrance of third parties, and break up the current "bi-opoly" which does nothing but encourage horse-trading and apathy in our legislature, leading to crap like this, where the courts have basically outsourced their responsibilities,which is illegal.

#18 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-06-25 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

the french identified the problem and initiated a solution at the end of the 18th
century

#19 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2014-06-25 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

There goes the Paulies' entire justification for gutting environmental and workplace laws.

####
1. They dont have a broad and out of touch constituency.
2. They bring representation of state governments into the legislative process and would protect their interests. That nonsense in California wouldnt fly if the Senators of that state had recourse to challenge the SC on its ruling by revoking its authority to rule as it did.
3. The Senator's constituents would be professionally competent to observe their actions. In other words, it would be alot harder to pull the wool over their constituents eyes.

Ply, that's all based on the assumption that state governments are saintly. Don't you think the party in power would pick Senators that did what they were told, even if it hurt 49% of the people in their state? And to say those state legislators are "professionally competant" is to state those elected to DC are as well. Elected politicians have to represent their constituencies as well as work with those representing other constituencies. Otherwise, Texas would have become the nuclear dump of America back in 2009.

#20 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-25 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15 Personally, I dont think publicly funding elections is quite the answer. I think that it starts with observant voters. Unfortunately, when the members of Congress themselves dont know what they're voting on, how can you expect voters too.

I agree 100% with #14. The root cause of the seemingly un-fixable problems in America are the result of corporate/special interest money in elections. Public financing of elections would go a long way to improving things.

It would be nice if we had more observant voters, but that is a fantasy in an establishment system that uses the media to keep voters uninterested, dumbed down and uninformed. As an example look at the channel roster of your cable system and you'll be lucky to find 6 channels that provide unbiased information on politics, and 500 other channels that are garbage entertainment or pure partisan.

Your point about having our Senators appointed by their state elected officials might would serve us better with more honest government. It should reduce the influence of individual lobbies such as corporate and those serving other countries. The Senators bread would then be buttered by their elected state officials not outsiders.

#21 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-25 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Personally, I dont think publicly funding elections is quite the answer.

#15 | Posted by americanPLY

It is absolutely the answer.

Even if senators were chosen by state governments, those governments could still be bought off by corporate stooges through election donations. And that would also do nothing to solve the purchasing of congressmen and presidents.

Public election funding fixes the problem at its SOURCE.

Ever wonder why simple problems that BOTH parties agree on can't be fixed? Why we are burning corn ethanol? Why the drug war can't be stopped? Why we can't stop building military weapon the military says we don't need? Voters from both parties want things like this, but corporate interests don't. If we had public election funding, corporations couldn't buy off the government anymore, and suddenly you'd see government functioning for the voters, as it was intended.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-25 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The Constitution protects us from government, not from corporations.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing is preventing you from attaching all sorts of language to the contracts you sign.

The corporation you're dealing with won't ever sign it, but you're free to try and turn the tables.

Our Constitution doesn't have much in it to prevent exploitation of consumers in a consumer-driven economy.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps the next time I pay a bill I will add a comment "by cashing this check you hereby agree that any disputes be resolved in the courts, not by arbitration.

Wish me luck! :)

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Constitution protects us from government, not from corporations."

And that government is supposed to regulate and thereby protect us from corporations. But since corporations bought our government it doesn't protect us, it only protects them.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-25 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Yes Danni. From the corporate point of view, the Constitution prevents government from meddling in their affairs too.

The Constitution is blind to the imbalance of power between regular people and billion dollar corporations. Congress, willfully so.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

End the corporate person.

#28 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-25 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Fascinating History of How Corporations Became "People" -- Thanks to Corrupt Courts Working for the 1%

"Hartmann then explained how it was that corporations actually became "people":

"In the headnote to the case -- a commentary written by the clerk, which is not legally binding, it's just a commentary to help out law students and whatnot, summarizing the case -- the Court's clerk wrote:

"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The discovery "that we'd been operating for over 100 years on an incorrect headnote" led Hartmann to look into the past of the clerk who'd written it, J. C. Bancroft Davis. He discovered that Davis had been a corrupt official who had himself previously served as the president of a railroad.

Digging deeper, Hartmann then discovered that Davis had been working "in collusion with another corrupt Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Field." The railroad companies, according to Hartmann, had promised Field that they'd sponsor his run for the White House if he assisted them in their effort to gain constitutional rights."

www.alternet.org

www.thomhartmann.com

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-25 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The corporation you're dealing with won't ever sign it, but you're free to try and turn the tables.

Try that with your internet service provider.

They will get a nice laugh out of it.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-25 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress needs to do their job and "Promote the General Welfare."

In an economy where 70% of GDP is consumer spending, that means consumer protection.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-25 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could you explain simply how statutes have usurped the 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury...

The Federal Arbitration Act does not usurped the Seventh Amendment. It permits parties to a contract to agree to arbitration. If there is no contract for arbitration then disputes are resolved in court.

...a 1925 Act...

Title 9, US Code, Section 1-14, was first enacted February 12, 1925 (43 Stat. 883), codified July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. 669), and amended September 3, 1954 (68 Stat. 1233). Chapter 2 was added July 31, 1970 (84 Stat. 692), two new Sections were passed by the Congress in October of 1988 and renumbered on December 1, 1990 (PLs669 and 702); Chapter 3 was added on August 15, 1990 (PL 101-369); and Section 10 was amended on November 15. www.ilr.cornell.edu
...squelched the ability for aggrieved parties to join together in taking legal action...

Are you referring to the AT&T case? If so, that excluded class action arbitration. If a class action is otherwise appropriate and not subject to arbitration it is brought in court.

...these proceeding now occur behind publicly-closed doors...

As far as I know arbitration has always been private.

...what recourse does Congress have to reign this practice back short of another constitutional amendment...

Again, generally, this is not a constitutional matter. It's statutory. If Congress chooses it can amend the statute to address any SC interpretation of the statute. It's call a "congressional override" and it happens more often than you may think. electionlawblog.org

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-25 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The left never ceases to amaze me----when the SC does something they disapprove of they squeal like little piggies but oh no; when the court is out of bounds on issues they love, then it's okay. Let's look at class action suits----most of them are initiated by lawyers without the concern of the average aggrieved citizens. Many of them are frivolous and costly for corporations. When settled, the lawyers usually make out like bandits and the so-called average citizens get pennies---arbitration is a lot less costly and it narrows the frivolous suits considerably.

#33 | Posted by matsop at 2014-06-25 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

...arbitration is a lot less costly...

Got a link for that because in my experience, depending on the nature of the suit, that's not true.

...frivolous suits...

Define frivolous.

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-25 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32

Thank you.

As far as I know arbitration has always been private.

I know. This was in comparison to court proceedings having to be public. Obviously, keeping negative information from disclosure is just another benefit for the defendants and an impediment for other plaintiffs.

It permits parties to a contract to agree to arbitration.

In this case, seems that it demands the signatory party submit to arbitration under coercion of necessity.

#35 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-25 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

In this case, seems that it demands the signatory party submit to arbitration under coercion of necessity.

Yes, one having contractually agreed to arbitration can be compelled to participate in that process to resolve their dispute, absent extraordinary circumstances. Either that or have the dispute unresolved, court's frown on parties breaching their contracts.

All that said, I am not a fan of arbitration especially for small consumer related matters. Disputes between sophisticated parties of equal bargaining power fine but the shrink wrap or click through or take it or leave it contracts, no. See "contracts of adhesion."

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-25 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Disputes between sophisticated parties of equal bargaining power fine but the shrink wrap or click through or take it or leave it contracts, no.

Exactly.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-26 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Free Trade Agreements all move towards US Global Corporate wishlists which includes being able to sue Governments for passing any law which reduces their profits and insulating them from lawsuits through rigged arbitration committees, which they control.

#38 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-26 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

allow me to chime on this.

first of all.....you can sue corporations. What Tony is arguing about is contract wording that prevents some lawsuits and that you can't always win a lawsuit.

I write a ton of liability insurance for corporations. Auto, general, umbrella, directors and officers, etc....

corporations, their owners and officers are all named in lawsuits every day.

This doesn't mean that corporations are given too much freedom with their everyday behavior.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

What Tony is arguing about is contract wording that prevents some lawsuits and that you can't always win a lawsuit.

The argument is very clear:

"Mandatory arbitration is a basic threat to our democracy," says Deepak Gupta, who argued the 2011 AT and T case before the Supreme Court. "This isn't about us all getting our $30 checks when a company has ripped us off. It's about laws that Congress passes being enforceable. The Supreme Court is allowing corporations to overturn law made by people we elect."

Businesses and corporations coerce individuals and other companies into binding agreements to seek any future redress through arbitration instead of through the court system as a matter of asenting to do business with them through the language they place within contracts or consent forms. Arbitration was enacted so that equally "sophisticated parties" -- tacitly business entities -- (as et_al states) could adjudicate disputes more quickly than the clogged court system allowed.

Due to the SCOTUS, this has morphed into the defacto position that corporations and businesses take to keep from being party to class actions even within the arbitration process itsel. And no one should honestly admit that consumers understand the forefeiture of their rights when they check off disclaimers and consent forms as simply the matter of receiving the goods or services that they desire to purchase.

In essence, corporations and businesses have been given the legal right to force individuals into the weakest possible position should the need for any legal action evolve. Such agreements coerce the signatories to relenquish their right to a trial by jury and even the right to seek redress through the court system itself. That is the argument.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-26 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with all of that. Arbitration is allowed when it shouldn't be when you consider the disparity of "sophistication" between the parties.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

A similar tactic used legally is regarding the insurance process.....and example would be a small manufacturer of products that a company sells to Wal-Mart.

In addition to the credit and supply terms (which can be outrageous), Wal-Mart (and most retailers) will require the maker of the product to name Wal-Mart as "additional insured" on the maker's products liability policy...which means if you buy something from walmart that harms you in some way and you attempt to sue walmart....walmart will hand that lawsuit to the maker and require them to defend and settle the suit on behalf of walmart. Further, even if walmart is negligent in their selling of the product (like recommending something wrong) and the maker wants to sue walmart for that later......walmart will have that covered as well by requiring an endorsement be added called "waiver of subrogration" which means the maker can't ever go back onto walmart for their negligence.

it's very common in many contracts between parties to have these clauses. we get insurance companies to agree to this.......for a charge.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-26 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

.... REVOLUTION-REVOLUTION-
REVOLUTION!

**** These Sleazy,Slimy SCOTUS WHORES should be taken out and Horse Whipped!!!

#43 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-06-26 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Et al -- best read on the DR once again.

Thanks, Et.

#44 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-06-27 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm late to this party and only skimmed comments so I apologize if I am being redundant.

One thing Et_Al, Tony and Eb all address is the "click through" contracts, I once read an article where someone took a standard computer with windows, office, and a few assorted programs. Based on all the "click through" contracts you have to agree to simply use the computer they estimated that it would take something like 500 hours to simply read them. That is just for basic pre-packaged software that you need to use a computer. The number goes up significantly for every piece of software you use and if you browse the web god help you.

It is one thing to argue that you agreed to the contract when you have a simple 2 page agreement.

When it literally will take you weeks or months of reading contracts just to use the product you buy the contract should IMHO be void. Et_Al can probably enlighten this but I have read a few cases where people did win because the courts determined that the fact that you had to agree to the terms as listed amounted to coercion and so the contract was void.

How a contract can be binding when there is no allowance for the signers to negotiate terms is just another example of the power of corporations.

#45 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-27 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I did read about this one a while back and got much enjoyment out of it.

national.deseretnews.com

best quote is "Oleg Tinkov, the founder of Tinkoff Credit Systems, said on his Twitter account that his lawyers think Agarkov will get 4 years in jail for fraud instead of the money he wants." So he changes terms they agree and they think he should be in jail for fraud not them?

Sadly not in America we all know our courts would never side with the consumer the way they did in Russia.

#46 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-27 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort