4 ms·

The "legal theory" is that you signed up for the credit card company to be a trusted middle man and to ajudicate exactly these sorts of disputes. This is part o

The "legal theory" is that you signed up for the credit card company to be a trusted middle man and to ajudicate exactly these sorts of disputes. This is part of value they provide.

TomMckenny 8y ago
It turns out you can not put anything you want in a contract. You can't contract away fundamental rights, for example you can't contract to vote a certain way. But perhaps rather than suggesting that everything in a contract is always valid, maybe you are referring to DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. And somehow that decision can be stretched to cover this case. Even so, it is clear that the call center is not acing as remotely as an arbitration court in any definition of the term because arbitration courts do have to meet some minimal legal set criterion. So I have a counter theory: the legal theory they're using is they can do whatever they want because the consumer could never afford the legal fees to challenge them on it. And pooling resources by class action is explicitly prohibited by the above decision. So I contend no, it's not legal but it is conveniently un-enforceable now.
- dd36 8y ago
  You can contract away basic rights. It’s called an arbitration agreement. Whatever is then written into a contract is adjudicated by whoever is defined as arbitrator. There are very limited appeal options.
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    The a guy at a call center can not act as arbitrator whether the contract says so or not (and I think we can be certain it does not) For example: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/mfa/Guidelines_and_Minimum_Qualifications_of_Arbitrators-R.pdf https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/mfa/Guidelines...
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > suggesting that everything in a contract is always valid I didn't suggest anything like that. Rather, things in contracts are valid by default. This isn't even a matter of onerous arbitration clauses (for disputes between the business and the consumer) being burried in fine print that no one reads. (Those have been regulated in some jurisdictions, but are mostly legal.) For credit cards, the arbitration is between the consumer and a 3rd party to the consumer's contract (the merchant), and literally is part of the value provided. People would use credit cards less if the service was discontinued.

The "legal theory" is that you signed up for the credit card company to be a trusted middle man and to ajudicate exactly these sorts of disputes. This is part of value they provide.

TomMckenny 8y ago

It turns out you can not put anything you want in a contract. You can't contract away fundamental rights, for example you can't contract to vote a certain way. But perhaps rather than suggesting that everything in a contract is always valid, maybe you are referring to DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. And somehow that decision can be stretched to cover this case. Even so, it is clear that the call center is not acing as remotely as an arbitration court in any definition of the term because arbitration courts do have to meet some minimal legal set criterion. So I have a counter theory: the legal theory they're using is they can do whatever they want because the consumer could never afford the legal fees to challenge them on it. And pooling resources by class action is explicitly prohibited by the above decision. So I contend no, it's not legal but it is conveniently un-enforceable now.

dd36 8y ago
You can contract away basic rights. It’s called an arbitration agreement. Whatever is then written into a contract is adjudicated by whoever is defined as arbitrator. There are very limited appeal options.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  The a guy at a call center can not act as arbitrator whether the contract says so or not (and I think we can be certain it does not) For example: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/mfa/Guidelines_and_Minimum_Qualifications_of_Arbitrators-R.pdf https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/mfa/Guidelines...
jessriedel 8y ago
> suggesting that everything in a contract is always valid I didn't suggest anything like that. Rather, things in contracts are valid by default. This isn't even a matter of onerous arbitration clauses (for disputes between the business and the consumer) being burried in fine print that no one reads. (Those have been regulated in some jurisdictions, but are mostly legal.) For credit cards, the arbitration is between the consumer and a 3rd party to the consumer's contract (the merchant), and literally is part of the value provided. People would use credit cards less if the service was discontinued.