4 ms·
To be fair, it was the Supreme Court ruling on the (big-business backed) Federal Arbitration Act[1]. The Supreme Court didn't just decide out of thin air "hey,
by gergles 15y ago
To be fair, it was the Supreme Court ruling on the (big-business backed) Federal Arbitration Act[1]. The Supreme Court didn't just decide out of thin air "hey, we should really fuck everyone over and make it so that all your grievances have to go to a secret court where the judge is paid by your opponent".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
(Though I would be interested to hear how such an act isn't unconstitutional as it seems to me to remove the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances - isn't that a guaranteed right?)
- Karunamon 15y agoI've always wondered what prevents a court from saying "Your agreement not to sue is between you and the person, we're not a part of it, i.e. take your agreement and shove it". If I sign a piece of paper that says I won't sue you, I don't see anything stopping a court from ignoring that outright.
- yummyfajitas 15y agoIf I sign a piece of paper that says I won't sue you, I don't see anything stopping a court from ignoring that outright. If courts ignored such pieces of paper, then settling lawsuits out of court would be impossible.
- gcb 15y agoI don't think they will consider it if you can't provide proof of compensation close to what's in the law for the claim he's making
- marshray 15y agoIf someone did, say, agree to an out of court settlement for something, then one party didn't perform as agreed I imagine it could easily end up in court again. Here wasn't it the same contract that mandated the arbitration that was not fulfilled by AT&T?
- Sander_Marechal 15y agoBut isn't a settlement by discretion of the court? Because it's usually in the interest of the people not to waste taxpayer's money on a lawsuit? But what then if a settlement isn't in the interest of the people?