3 ms·

Have you ever been involved in litigation? I have and it would have saved me a year of bullshit an $100k of legal fees if the contract I was litigating had a f

Have you ever been involved in litigation? I have and it would have saved me a year of bullshit an $100k of legal fees if the contract I was litigating had a forced arbitration clause.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
Isn't this why companies love Delaware, Hong Kong, and Singapore? AFAIK the courts in these jurisdictions are fast and uphold the rule of law (contract law included).
- b112 4y ago
  I doubt Hong Kong is that way today. Virtually every other aspect of Hong Kong civil administration is now the same as China's, or subverted to be the same.
acdha 4y ago
It can be cheaper but the answer to a system favoring the wealthiest party isn’t to switch to one which is controlled by the wealthiest party.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > a system favoring the wealthiest party Evidence for this bias is scant. Instead, complaints centre around perceptions [1], which while valid, need to be balanced against the constraint to launching litigation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs. [1] https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20195/06_Stipanowich_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20195/06...
  - acdha 4y ago
    Based on that narrow quote, it's unclear whether you're disagreeing with the perceptions about litigation or arbitration. My position is simply that we know there are biases affecting access to the court system (especially with a class component where people aren't sure/aware of their full range of options) but also that large companies are enthusiastically pursuing arbitration for reasons unlikely to be improved fairness, especially since the end stage for arbitration is litigation. The main thing I'd like would be chipping away at the take-it-or-leave it approach we see currently, which is in line with that article's points around choice. Expanding the range of choices and, especially, allowing people to switch in the future would go a long way towards avoiding an unhealthy power dynamic.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      The obvious reason that large companies want arbitration is because it's cheaper. People file frivolous lawsuits against large companies all the time, and since it costs minimum $100K in legal fees to take a case to trial, these companies (or their insurance companies) will generally choose to just settle and make a payout because it's actually cheaper than going to court, even if they win. Arbitration is a much quicker and cheaper process, so it effectively counters the tactic of filing frivolous suits for greenmail payments.
      - acdha 4y ago
        Companies also routinely _claim_ that lawsuits are frivolous but that doesn't mean we should take their word on it. It's not even remotely true that it costs a minimum of $100K, so I would start by questioning whether the person who told you that had an ulterior motive.
        fallingknife 4y ago
        I know that there are tons of frivolous greenmail lawsuits because I have been at companies on the receiving end. I know how much lawyers cost through personal experience. What is your evidence? What are your motives?

Have you ever been involved in litigation? I have and it would have saved me a year of bullshit an $100k of legal fees if the contract I was litigating had a forced arbitration clause.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

Isn't this why companies love Delaware, Hong Kong, and Singapore? AFAIK the courts in these jurisdictions are fast and uphold the rule of law (contract law included).

b112 4y ago
I doubt Hong Kong is that way today. Virtually every other aspect of Hong Kong civil administration is now the same as China's, or subverted to be the same.

acdha 4y ago

It can be cheaper but the answer to a system favoring the wealthiest party isn’t to switch to one which is controlled by the wealthiest party.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> a system favoring the wealthiest party Evidence for this bias is scant. Instead, complaints centre around perceptions [1], which while valid, need to be balanced against the constraint to launching litigation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs. [1] https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20195/06_Stipanowich_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20195/06...
- acdha 4y ago
  Based on that narrow quote, it's unclear whether you're disagreeing with the perceptions about litigation or arbitration. My position is simply that we know there are biases affecting access to the court system (especially with a class component where people aren't sure/aware of their full range of options) but also that large companies are enthusiastically pursuing arbitration for reasons unlikely to be improved fairness, especially since the end stage for arbitration is litigation. The main thing I'd like would be chipping away at the take-it-or-leave it approach we see currently, which is in line with that article's points around choice. Expanding the range of choices and, especially, allowing people to switch in the future would go a long way towards avoiding an unhealthy power dynamic.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    The obvious reason that large companies want arbitration is because it's cheaper. People file frivolous lawsuits against large companies all the time, and since it costs minimum $100K in legal fees to take a case to trial, these companies (or their insurance companies) will generally choose to just settle and make a payout because it's actually cheaper than going to court, even if they win. Arbitration is a much quicker and cheaper process, so it effectively counters the tactic of filing frivolous suits for greenmail payments.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Companies also routinely _claim_ that lawsuits are frivolous but that doesn't mean we should take their word on it. It's not even remotely true that it costs a minimum of $100K, so I would start by questioning whether the person who told you that had an ulterior motive.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        I know that there are tons of frivolous greenmail lawsuits because I have been at companies on the receiving end. I know how much lawyers cost through personal experience. What is your evidence? What are your motives?