eadler

7 ms·

31.
by eadler 2y ago
Bear in mind this was written in 1928 in a very different legal context. In particular it was written before the Erie double-reversal [0]. Personally, I think it was poorly drafted by modern standards. Today, this particular exclusion would
32.
by eadler 2y ago
I used the ellipse for emphasis rather than dishonesty. The full quote was above. (If HN supported formatting I'd perhaps have used bold instead of ellipse+elision.) And yes. I read the full text of Circuit City including every footnot
33.
by eadler 2y ago
You're correctly understanding the mistake the court made. The principle does not normally apply in this context under ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. I even gave you a source from the author of the law itself. You are corr
34.
by eadler 2y ago
"but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers ...." was specifically intended to exclude all employment contract. It was the Court, in Circuit C
35.
by eadler 2y ago
The Court, not Congress, favoured arbitration over court in consumer contracts. Arbitration, when passed, was designed for contract disputes between merchants, not statutory claims or between entities of unequal bargaining power. In fact me
36.
by eadler 2y ago
At this point I feel the need to post my analysis whenever this comes up. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/
37.
by eadler 2y ago
It is almost entirely court created. While the concept was originally created via legislation - it was never conceived to ever be used by consumers. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ At this point
38.
by eadler 2y ago
Community notes was designed and shipped before the takeover. It was called "birdwatch".
39.
by eadler 2y ago
Community notes was designed and shipped before the takeover. It was called "birdwatch".
40.
by eadler 2y ago
> In fact, a no deal finding will help you when you sue in court after. Generally speaking, arbitration prohibits court. > You can always sue. Just not in a class action. Can you provide a citation? > any contract that removes your
41.
by eadler 2y ago
You are correct. Please see https://arbitrationinformation.org/#scope for some additional limitations that I intended. I should write out a more formalized (or at least, copy-pasteable) view here. (this effort is entirely d
42.
by eadler 2y ago
Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of 'Kangaroo Court' (s
43.
Pre Dispute Arbitration Agreements – Pros and Cons(arbitrationinformation.org)
1 points by eadler 2y ago|1 comments
44.
by eadler 2y ago
Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of 'Kangaroo Court' (s
45.
by eadler 2y ago
> department of governmental efficiency I have no idea if this is 'extreme' or not but U.S. Government Accountability Office already exists. https://www.gao.gov/about > GAO, often called the "congressi
46.
by eadler 2y ago
I only specifically responded to the claim that the advertisers were not a party to the lawsuit. I make no claim as to the nature of claim, the appropriateness of the Sherman act, or if the claims will fail as a matter of law or fact (or ne
47.
by eadler 2y ago
Yes he did: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.39... Parties include the following. The last 5 are advertisers. - WORLD FEDERATION OF ADVERTISERS; - UNILEVER PLC - UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. -
48.
by eadler 2y ago
The Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68023366/x-corp-v-media... The actual ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38... It is consistently infuriating t
49.
by eadler 2y ago
Agreed. I originally did not do so since it was incomplete and I was a bit worried about the association. It's all in a public git repo so my name was never truly hidden. But now that I'm using it more, it does make sense to be mo
50.
by eadler 2y ago
pre-dispute arbitration agreements are bad. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ there are some very few aspects that can be positives under some conditions (speed, informality, etc.), it is almost
51.
by eadler 2y ago
"Right to work" is an anti union provision and has nothing to do with being fired. You might be thinking of "at will employment" - which is the case in 49 of 50 states.
52.
Why the "haves" come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change [pdf](advicenow.org.uk)
1 points by eadler 2y ago|0 comments
53.
by eadler 2y ago
The legal standard is, roughly, if the contract is "unconscionable". The courts have repeatedly ruled that most arbitration agreements are enforcable. The FTC has previously attempted rule making to invalidate predispute arbitrati
54.
by eadler 2y ago
There is a growing trend of companies inserting "mass arbitration" or "coordinated filing" clauses into their contracts. It isn't clear if these will be enforceable. The arbitration providers (AAA, JAMS, etc.) hav
55.
by eadler 2y ago
your periodic reminder that pre-dispute arbitration agreements are evil: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/
56.
by eadler 2y ago
Could you point me to any description or source for this? It doesn't describe any legal process I'm familiar with.
57.
by eadler 2y ago
This doesn't work. As an example: > As for “flagrant misuse of the attorney-client privilege,” that refers to Google’s “Communicate with Care” initiative. Google trained its employees to add its in-house lawyers on “any written comm
58.
by eadler 2y ago
It is a veridical paradox, not a falsidical paradox. A falsidical paradox is what most people think of as a formal paradox: from the assertions you derive a conclusion which is false (either deductively or inductively). A veridical paradox
59.
by eadler 2y ago
The problem is that Zotero, and Citation Style Language (CSL) in general, does not support the data required. See for example: - https://juris-m.readthedocs.io/en/latest/introduction.html - https://juri
60.
by eadler 2y ago
"Right to work" is an anti union provision and has nothing to with being fired for cause or not.

More ›