4 ms·

Except it's not new, and the stats show it's not what you think it is. You're not thinking ahead -- you're making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge of a

• mindslight 8y ago
  > you're making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge of a complex field you know little about Well, to even form a contract, both parties have to have an understanding of what exactly is being agreed to. So it's more than a bit disingenuous to claim that the real details are just too complex for a non-insider to have an opinion. And BTW, the trend is new enough that individual companies are still shifting between having said clauses and not after getting slapped down (eg CapitalOne), and tinkering with said clauses in an attempt to make them hold up better (eg adding a 30 day opt out period from account opening).
  • Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    > both parties have to have an understanding of what exactly is being agreed to An understanding that they will be undergoing arbitration is enough to satisfy the "meeting of the minds" element, the fact that a lot of people have antifactual opinions about arbitration notwithstanding. >And BTW, the trend is new enough that individual companies are still shifting between having said clauses and not after getting slapped down (eg CapitalOne), and tinkering with said clauses in an attempt to make them hold up better (eg adding a 30 day opt out period from account opening). Yes, and this is primarily because of silly attacks on arbitration, and not because of actual facts. Judges are really bad at looking at facts -- this is one more area where arbitration tends to do far better. The average person loves rent control, too, but that doesn't stop them from being provably wrong.