3 ms·
You have cited class action and the uniform code of commerce. If EULA contains mandatory binding arbitration and a no class action clause, both your ideas are
by kevin_b_er 9y ago
You have cited class action and the uniform code of commerce.
If EULA contains mandatory binding arbitration and a no class action clause, both your ideas are dead in the water.
Per the SCOTUS contract law supersedes class action. Your idea for a class action is dead. Mandatory binding arbitration is not required to follow any law but the AAA. The arbiter may ignore the UCC. The UCC concerns are now dead as well.
Even the _legality_ of a contract itself probably does not stop mandatory binding arbitration: http://www.law.com/sites/davidmgersten/2014/08/01/arbitration-follow-justice-or-follow-law http://www.law.com/sites/davidmgersten/2014/08/01/arbitratio...
- awinter-py 9y agoI'm not a lawyer nor a consumer law expert. My theory of the case is that if the goods delivered were known to be unfit by the vendor, consideration was not met and the contract wasn't formed. Some of these contracts waive the implied warrant of merchantibility. Not sure which jurisdictions allow that. Not sure if the warrant of merchantibility is still 'implied' if a specific use is advertised and the product isn't fit for that use. I suspect the unconscionability test in contract law is stronger in contracts of adhesion.
- awinter-py 9y agoactually ignore the above. I just read your law.com/davidmgersten source and I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.