4 ms·

There is a doctrine for contracts that aren't considered "negotiable" where any ambiguity must be considered in favor of the weaker party. Of course this then

There is a doctrine for contracts that aren't considered "negotiable" where any ambiguity must be considered in favor of the weaker party. Of course this then makes it so the writer of the contract wants things to be explicit as possible. Quite the opposite of succinct and "plain" English. Also the courts fundamentally consider arbitration to be the solution to the power imbalance problem. Its much less expensive and quicker for both parties. HN has the opposite impression of them, but that is the reason they are being pushed so hard.

mokus 8y ago
The problem is that this precision comes at the expense of the vast majority of people’s ability to comprehend the agreements they are entering into. In these cases, I would argue the contracts should be void because there is no “meeting of the minds”. If someone doesn’t have a lawyer, they should not be bound by contracts that cannot be properly understood without a lawyer.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I think most people here are more than ok with Arbitration being an option, but what people here hate are the clauses in the contracts which require arbitration that is paid for by the company, essentially removing your right to redress in the courts.
- slededit 8y ago
  non-binding arbitration wouldn't solve the power imbalance, as if the company loses they would file an appeal in court - and you'd have to pay or drop it. For it to work as intended it has to be binding. The flip side is you can't go to court - but alas you couldn't afford to anyways.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I don't see the issue as being difficult or complicated - binding arbitration is fine and useful, as long as it is mutually agreed upon after the disagreement arises but before it is litigated. The problem is being pressured to commit to arbitration long before you know what the implications will be. Thus, I think it should not be permitted for anyone to make that decision in advance of the specific dispute.
    - slededit 8y ago
      If there was class arbitration or arbitration provisions were void in the case of a class action then much of the criticism would go away. The main problem today is companies can commit “small” torts under $1,000 and it’s not worth it for individuals to complain seperately.
amluto 8y ago
> Its much less expensive and quicker for both parties. Really? I'm hold a promissory note in a company that is in default. Unfortunately, I made a rookie mistake and agreed to an arbitration clause in the note. Suing the company in a real court would be quite inexpensive. Filing an arbitration claim is quite a few times as expensive. Even if I filed and won an arbitration case, I would then, drumroll please, need to sue in a real court in order to obtain an actual enforceable judgment. So I'm rather unconvinced.

mokus 8y ago

The problem is that this precision comes at the expense of the vast majority of people’s ability to comprehend the agreements they are entering into. In these cases, I would argue the contracts should be void because there is no “meeting of the minds”. If someone doesn’t have a lawyer, they should not be bound by contracts that cannot be properly understood without a lawyer.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I think most people here are more than ok with Arbitration being an option, but what people here hate are the clauses in the contracts which require arbitration that is paid for by the company, essentially removing your right to redress in the courts.

slededit 8y ago
non-binding arbitration wouldn't solve the power imbalance, as if the company loses they would file an appeal in court - and you'd have to pay or drop it. For it to work as intended it has to be binding. The flip side is you can't go to court - but alas you couldn't afford to anyways.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I don't see the issue as being difficult or complicated - binding arbitration is fine and useful, as long as it is mutually agreed upon after the disagreement arises but before it is litigated. The problem is being pressured to commit to arbitration long before you know what the implications will be. Thus, I think it should not be permitted for anyone to make that decision in advance of the specific dispute.
  - slededit 8y ago
    If there was class arbitration or arbitration provisions were void in the case of a class action then much of the criticism would go away. The main problem today is companies can commit “small” torts under $1,000 and it’s not worth it for individuals to complain seperately.

amluto 8y ago

> Its much less expensive and quicker for both parties. Really? I'm hold a promissory note in a company that is in default. Unfortunately, I made a rookie mistake and agreed to an arbitration clause in the note. Suing the company in a real court would be quite inexpensive. Filing an arbitration claim is quite a few times as expensive. Even if I filed and won an arbitration case, I would then, drumroll please, need to sue in a real court in order to obtain an actual enforceable judgment. So I'm rather unconvinced.