View Poll Results: Do you support usurping individual rights to join class action lawsuits?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 14.29%
  • No

    5 71.43%
  • I have no opinion

    1 14.29%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
Thanks Tree19Thanks

Thread: Regarding arbitration clauses in financial contracts

  1. #11
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    When you sign the contract you are agreeing to the terms. If you do not like the terms, negotiate or walk away. They have something that you want. If you want it bad enough, you will sign.
    There is no such thing as negotiation when it comes to signing a contract with the crooks who control society. Most of you are slaves to the banks that intentionally caused every financial collapse.
    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix

  2. #12
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32,780
    Thanks
    30331

    From
    United States
    Do Republicans in general support regulations requiring arbitration?

    I certainly don't. I'm opposed to frivolous lawsuits, but I don't think that we should address that problem by outlawing lawsuits altogether.

  3. #13
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    989

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Do Republicans in general support regulations requiring arbitration?

    I certainly don't. I'm opposed to frivolous lawsuits, but I don't think that we should address that problem by outlawing lawsuits altogether.
    In NJ arbitration clauses are generally upheld unless somehow violating public policy. I'm not sure if its a partisan political issue, at least generally. But I might add that the courts themselves compel first....non-binding mediation and then non-binding arbitration. Beyond arbitration a party can file to proceed to trial but there's a catch, if the party seeking to proceed doesn't do BETTER than at arbitration that party can be on the hook for the attorney fees of the other party.....

    Where I tend not to support contracts of adhesion are arbitration clauses that compel arbitration in obvioisly inconvenient forums.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #14
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32,780
    Thanks
    30331

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    In NJ arbitration clauses are generally upheld unless somehow violating public policy. I'm not sure if its a partisan political issue, at least generally. But I might add that the courts themselves compel first....non-binding mediation and then non-binding arbitration. Beyond arbitration a party can file to proceed to trial but there's a catch, if the party seeking to proceed doesn't do BETTER than at arbitration that party can be on the hook for the attorney fees of the other party.....
    I have no problem with voluntary arbitration. It is forced arbitration, while waiving access to a court of law, that concerns me.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  5. #15
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,257
    Thanks
    23758

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    When you sign the contract you are agreeing to the terms. If you do not like the terms, negotiate or walk away. They have something that you want. If you want it bad enough, you will sign.
    There is a problem with this regarding contracts of adhesion - i.e., "take it or leave it" contracts. If it is just you and me negotiating the sale of, say, some building materials, and we have authority to negotiate (including being self-employed), then we could indeed negotiate away an arbitration clause, or fashion an alternative, or whatever. Or, we can agree to a binding arbitration clause, and that is that. Or one of us could go elsewhere. Note that there is somewhere else to go.

    Not so when it comes to bank accounts. Negotiation is not possible, and in today's society it is nearly impossible to participate in society without a bank account. You need the bank, but the bank does not need you (unless you possess many billions of dollars or something, in which case they may want you badly enough to waive the clause - less than 1% of the population would have access to this, of course). In essence, the banks (or likely any other major industry as well) form a cartel for the purpose of certain contractual terms (or minor variations thereupon) they will all use, such that one does not truly have a choice, and it is this kind of binding arbitration clause that can be struck down by the courts.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,195
    Thanks
    3813

    From
    AK
    Why is this question limited to financial institutions?
    Thanks from chaos

  7. #17
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,928
    Thanks
    5839

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There is a problem with this regarding contracts of adhesion - i.e., "take it or leave it" contracts. If it is just you and me negotiating the sale of, say, some building materials, and we have authority to negotiate (including being self-employed), then we could indeed negotiate away an arbitration clause, or fashion an alternative, or whatever. Or, we can agree to a binding arbitration clause, and that is that. Or one of us could go elsewhere. Note that there is somewhere else to go.

    Not so when it comes to bank accounts. Negotiation is not possible, and in today's society it is nearly impossible to participate in society without a bank account. You need the bank, but the bank does not need you (unless you possess many billions of dollars or something, in which case they may want you badly enough to waive the clause - less than 1% of the population would have access to this, of course). In essence, the banks (or likely any other major industry as well) form a cartel for the purpose of certain contractual terms (or minor variations thereupon) they will all use, such that one does not truly have a choice, and it is this kind of binding arbitration clause that can be struck down by the courts.
    Thank you !!!

    This first grader view of the world by SD is just too much for me to put in the effort for such arguments after a long work day. I appreciate you having the energy for it.
    Thanks from chaos

  8. #18
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,108
    Thanks
    6735

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    What if your investment banker is Bernie Madoff?
    Then you made a bad decision.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,108
    Thanks
    6735

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    You could say the exact same thing were they allowed to demand my first born child. Have you no sense of morality?
    It's called a contract. Both parties sign the agreement if they accept the terms. If you do not want to accept the terms, go elsewhere. It's that simple. They have something that you want. How badly do you want it?

  10. #20
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,108
    Thanks
    6735

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by chaos View Post
    There is no such thing as negotiation when it comes to signing a contract with the crooks who control society. Most of you are slaves to the banks that intentionally caused every financial collapse.
    The party that has what you want, has the upper hand in the negotiations but it is still a negotiation. You can refuse. If everyone refused, they'd change the contract.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Arbitration Court Nixes BP's Russia Tie-Up......
    By Midwest Media Critic in forum Economics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th March 2011, 11:23 AM
  2. let's try again - IMPLIED CONTRACTS
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 2nd November 2009, 01:48 AM
  3. more on implied contracts
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19th September 2009, 08:20 PM
  4. implied contracts
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th September 2009, 07:19 PM
  5. Should this affect the Halliburton contracts?
    By johnlocke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 13th March 2007, 08:31 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed