5 ms·

As if there wasn't a binding arbitration clause in the Ink for Life service agreement.

by Bjartr 6y ago

jnsie 6y ago
I always wonder if it is reasonable to assume that people are capable of understanding service agreements. Like, could a court make a decision that the customer was not a lawyer and therefore could not fully understand the agreement. Further, that the barrier to hiring a lawyer to understand such an agreement is too high (i.e. expensive) and it is unreasonable to expect the customer to do so.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  A court COULD make that decision, but there're centuries of precedent that this is not the case, which is tragic. The court will assume that no reasonable person would agree to a contract without reading the contents and consulting with a lawyer on anything that is unclear during the contract's negotiations, and for major contracts between large companies, they would be correct. It would be a nearly revolutionary change to introduce a law like "you cannot meaningfully agree to any contracts or agreements without a lawyer advising you and a representative of the other party empowered to negotiate the terms." I'm all for it, though. You'd need to fix several other kinds of laws around liability for negligence and the like, but those things need fixing anyway. The current hack where everybody agrees to waive their rights to sue for negligence is stupid. You would, however, need a new kind of thing that handled common agreements like terms of a credit card. There need to be terms, hiring lawyers for each person is ridiculous, but "contract" is probably the wrong model since no customer could be expected to understand it all, meaningfully consent to it, or negotiate the terms. I would be interested in what an alternative system could be. I kind of imagine a government body deciding on acceptable terms for various forms of business, effectively acting as the customer's agent in negotiations, but that seems ripe for corruption and also really inefficient and hard to innovate around. Suggestions?
  - adriand 6y ago
    Suggestion: regulation. There are already many industries where what you can agree to is regulated. There should be more.
    - moron4hire 6y ago
      Seriously. Look at the car market. Every dealership has a binding arbitration clause in their purchase agreements and will not sell you the car without it. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else". But there is nowhere else to go.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    You have it backwards. There is a mountain of precedent behind the idea that customers can't understand the fine print, and thus these "contracts of adhesion" are restricted.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
      That's another nasty hack, though. First, courts decide that not reading or not understanding a contract is not an excuse. Then, companies just start having their customers agree to ridiculous terms. So courts try and fix it by partially restricting those 'agreements.' "Okay, so you're allowed to waive the right to sue for negligence, but you can't waive the right to sue for gross negligence." It's a situation where companies can basically get customers to waive every right they have right up until a fuzzy "unconscionable" line. That's a quick hack around a terrible system.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    Freedom of contract. FREEDOM!! Americans have every right to sign horrible contracts. They can also done all thier money to doll museums, or gamble it away in vegas. Like it or not, any measures that sound like they are limiting consumer choice, even choice to make obvious mistakes, will face serious resistance. The outer limits on contracts are things like slavery, children, and taking advantage of the disabled. Bad printer service contracts dont come close.
crispyporkbites 6y ago
Means nothing, it’s not reasonable to expect a customer to understand or read this
ldiracdelta 6y ago
If enough people file individual actions with the binding arbitration company, they'll _wish_ it was a class action instead.
- wahern 6y ago
  That trick only works the first few times. Language will be adjusted in new and even old agreements. Also, IIRC, in one of those infamous cases the arbitration company gave their client a bulk discount, because the arbitration company knows which side of their bread is buttered. Undoubtedly new contracts with arbitration companies already include special pricing for mass arbitration, presumably tailored to minimize the client's and arbitrator's costs while maximizing their client's customers' costs.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    Arbitration isn't a magic wand. If the arbitrator colludes with one side, the other side can file class action. A more practical answer is telling everyone you know that HP is a sham company, and avoid their products like the rona.
    - wahern 6y ago
      If negotiating costs with the arbitrator could, per se, constitute cognizable collusion I don't think arbitration would be a thing. It is a thing. Therefore we're stuck with the system. What really needs to happen is for Congress to legislatively overturn conservative justices' belated, radical reinterpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, effectively preempting traditional state law-based policies that reign in unfair arbitration practices. But anti-trial lawyer propaganda has permeated deep into the American psyche, including among Democrats. Legislation that could be spun as empowering trial lawyers has become something of a third rail in American politics, especially at the national level. The alternative to fixing the FAA is to do like Civil Law countries and create more regulatory bodies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But 1) both conservative legislators and judges make it their hobby to cripple those agencies; and 2) I, for one, would prefer going back to a regime that permits more private actions because, at least in modern American politics, a centralized consumer protection process is politically impractical even without the disingenuous and baldly partisan efforts of politicians and judges. The problem with regulatory agencies is that to be effective they have to stick their nose into everybody's business preemptively. That's not a good fit for American-style enterprise and politics. The nice thing about civil suits is that, at least in principle, they can only happen when someone has actually been wronged and suffered actual losses. Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages.

As if there wasn't a binding arbitration clause in the Ink for Life service agreement.

by Bjartr 6y ago

As if there wasn't a binding arbitration clause in the Ink for Life service agreement.

I always wonder if it is reasonable to assume that people are capable of understanding service agreements. Like, could a court make a decision that the customer was not a lawyer and therefore could not fully understand the agreement. Further, that the barrier to hiring a lawyer to understand such an agreement is too high (i.e. expensive) and it is unreasonable to expect the customer to do so.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
A court COULD make that decision, but there're centuries of precedent that this is not the case, which is tragic. The court will assume that no reasonable person would agree to a contract without reading the contents and consulting with a lawyer on anything that is unclear during the contract's negotiations, and for major contracts between large companies, they would be correct. It would be a nearly revolutionary change to introduce a law like "you cannot meaningfully agree to any contracts or agreements without a lawyer advising you and a representative of the other party empowered to negotiate the terms." I'm all for it, though. You'd need to fix several other kinds of laws around liability for negligence and the like, but those things need fixing anyway. The current hack where everybody agrees to waive their rights to sue for negligence is stupid. You would, however, need a new kind of thing that handled common agreements like terms of a credit card. There need to be terms, hiring lawyers for each person is ridiculous, but "contract" is probably the wrong model since no customer could be expected to understand it all, meaningfully consent to it, or negotiate the terms. I would be interested in what an alternative system could be. I kind of imagine a government body deciding on acceptable terms for various forms of business, effectively acting as the customer's agent in negotiations, but that seems ripe for corruption and also really inefficient and hard to innovate around. Suggestions?
- adriand 6y ago
  Suggestion: regulation. There are already many industries where what you can agree to is regulated. There should be more.
  - moron4hire 6y ago
    Seriously. Look at the car market. Every dealership has a binding arbitration clause in their purchase agreements and will not sell you the car without it. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else". But there is nowhere else to go.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  You have it backwards. There is a mountain of precedent behind the idea that customers can't understand the fine print, and thus these "contracts of adhesion" are restricted.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    That's another nasty hack, though. First, courts decide that not reading or not understanding a contract is not an excuse. Then, companies just start having their customers agree to ridiculous terms. So courts try and fix it by partially restricting those 'agreements.' "Okay, so you're allowed to waive the right to sue for negligence, but you can't waive the right to sue for gross negligence." It's a situation where companies can basically get customers to waive every right they have right up until a fuzzy "unconscionable" line. That's a quick hack around a terrible system.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Freedom of contract. FREEDOM!! Americans have every right to sign horrible contracts. They can also done all thier money to doll museums, or gamble it away in vegas. Like it or not, any measures that sound like they are limiting consumer choice, even choice to make obvious mistakes, will face serious resistance. The outer limits on contracts are things like slavery, children, and taking advantage of the disabled. Bad printer service contracts dont come close.

crispyporkbites 6y ago

Means nothing, it’s not reasonable to expect a customer to understand or read this

ldiracdelta 6y ago

If enough people file individual actions with the binding arbitration company, they'll _wish_ it was a class action instead.

wahern 6y ago
That trick only works the first few times. Language will be adjusted in new and even old agreements. Also, IIRC, in one of those infamous cases the arbitration company gave their client a bulk discount, because the arbitration company knows which side of their bread is buttered. Undoubtedly new contracts with arbitration companies already include special pricing for mass arbitration, presumably tailored to minimize the client's and arbitrator's costs while maximizing their client's customers' costs.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Arbitration isn't a magic wand. If the arbitrator colludes with one side, the other side can file class action. A more practical answer is telling everyone you know that HP is a sham company, and avoid their products like the rona.
  - wahern 6y ago
    If negotiating costs with the arbitrator could, per se, constitute cognizable collusion I don't think arbitration would be a thing. It is a thing. Therefore we're stuck with the system. What really needs to happen is for Congress to legislatively overturn conservative justices' belated, radical reinterpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, effectively preempting traditional state law-based policies that reign in unfair arbitration practices. But anti-trial lawyer propaganda has permeated deep into the American psyche, including among Democrats. Legislation that could be spun as empowering trial lawyers has become something of a third rail in American politics, especially at the national level. The alternative to fixing the FAA is to do like Civil Law countries and create more regulatory bodies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But 1) both conservative legislators and judges make it their hobby to cripple those agencies; and 2) I, for one, would prefer going back to a regime that permits more private actions because, at least in modern American politics, a centralized consumer protection process is politically impractical even without the disingenuous and baldly partisan efforts of politicians and judges. The problem with regulatory agencies is that to be effective they have to stick their nose into everybody's business preemptively. That's not a good fit for American-style enterprise and politics. The nice thing about civil suits is that, at least in principle, they can only happen when someone has actually been wronged and suffered actual losses. Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages.