3 ms·

You seem like you might have this backwards. This isn't a clause creating the option of arbitration in the face of an otherwise guaranteed trip to court - you a

You seem like you might have this backwards. This isn't a clause creating the option of arbitration in the face of an otherwise guaranteed trip to court - you already have that option. This is a clause removing the option of going to court. Yes, costs can be kept down by requiring things stay out of court. This is at the expense of some of the normal guarantees you can expect from our court system. If that's okay for you, and you're in an equal bargaining position with the other party, go wild. You're not in an equal bargaining position with the banking industry when a majority of banks start adding the clause to their T&C.

logicallee 10y ago
aren't there limits on the enforceability of arbitration? meaning if people are REALLY unhappy with the arbitrated decision, can't they sue anyway? what I mean is, isn't arbitration in a sense always "voluntary", because you can always sue after, if you really don't like it? Thanks.
- jpallas 10y ago
  The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    but it says here: (I googled the phrase without quotes "can you sue after binding arbitration") http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbindingarbitration.aspx http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbi... >A decision on a binding arbitration cannot be appealed or overturned unless there are rare circumstances present (fraud, bias or other inappropriate actions on the part of the arbitration attorney). After the decision is rendered, the case is over. The things that are the main worry here - bias - would be explicit grounds for throwing out binding arbitration. So I still don't follow how "binding arbitration" means "whatever the company wants, and you're SOL on your side." It would be a clear case of bias if that were the case, and based on what I've just read would allow you recourse to a normal lawsuit...? On the other hand, why are the decisions of unbiased arbitration worrysome? I don't understand what the problem people have with it is, and so far it hasn't been expressed clearly to me. Maybe you can help, jpallas? Just trying to understand here. THanks

logicallee 10y ago

aren't there limits on the enforceability of arbitration? meaning if people are REALLY unhappy with the arbitrated decision, can't they sue anyway? what I mean is, isn't arbitration in a sense always "voluntary", because you can always sue after, if you really don't like it? Thanks.

jpallas 10y ago
The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.
- logicallee 10y ago
  but it says here: (I googled the phrase without quotes "can you sue after binding arbitration") http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbindingarbitration.aspx http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbi... >A decision on a binding arbitration cannot be appealed or overturned unless there are rare circumstances present (fraud, bias or other inappropriate actions on the part of the arbitration attorney). After the decision is rendered, the case is over. The things that are the main worry here - bias - would be explicit grounds for throwing out binding arbitration. So I still don't follow how "binding arbitration" means "whatever the company wants, and you're SOL on your side." It would be a clear case of bias if that were the case, and based on what I've just read would allow you recourse to a normal lawsuit...? On the other hand, why are the decisions of unbiased arbitration worrysome? I don't understand what the problem people have with it is, and so far it hasn't been expressed clearly to me. Maybe you can help, jpallas? Just trying to understand here. THanks