CDZ How big a deal is this: Arbitration wins vs Judicial Branch

[Toronado3800]

Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court. We are on the up and up so nothing has ever come of it but I've always wondered how good a deal that is to sign away your right to use a branch of the government.

Is it a big deal though? People don't have to sign those contracts.....unless you want to finance furniture on credit, use a credit card or buy a car on credit. Still, you don't have to.

Do these clauses effectively remove a citizen's right to due process? I believe so. At my work they do. Do any of you all have lenders available who don't use that arbitration clause? If they are decent pass their name on.

I can see this two ways from a small government point of view I suppose, "If people are dumb enough to sign contracts limiting their right to oxygen or the right to sue a lender so be it."

Is that where we are?

If so can we drop this "christian nation" talk?

Is it a big deal? It has never come up in my life.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court.

I may be mistaken, but I believe those clauses do not preclude one from participating in a class action. Reducing exposure to class action suits are, I think, the aim of the move to make it more difficult to sue banks.

 

[BlackSand]

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court.

I may be mistaken, but I believe those clauses do not preclude one from participating in a class action. Reducing exposure to class action suits are, I think, the aim of the move to make it more difficult to sue banks.

In most cases the clauses require the two entities to go to arbitration first (even though arbitration is supposed to be instead of).
In some cases if satisfactory terms cannot be agreed upon during arbitration, or agreed upon terms cannot be met (subsequent bankruptcy etc ...) then the entity can choose to sue.

How that may work with class action lawsuits ... I don't know anything about.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court.

I may be mistaken, but I believe those clauses do not preclude one from participating in a class action. Reducing exposure to class action suits are, I think, the aim of the move to make it more difficult to sue banks.

In most cases the clauses require the two entities to go to arbitration first (even though arbitration is supposed to be instead of).
In some cases if satisfactory terms cannot be agreed upon during arbitration, or agreed upon terms cannot be met (subsequent bankruptcy etc ...) then the entity can choose to sue.

How that may work with class action lawsuits ... I don't know anything about..

Nor do I, and, frankly, I'm not willing to put in the effort to find out. Perhaps if a legal segment shows up on the news, and that segment in turn provides enough preliminary info for me to know where to direct my energy in trying to better understand the matter, I will come to know how those clauses affect one's participation in class actions. Truly, however, I don't right now care whether I can easily or with difficulty sue a bank because it's very unlikely I'm ever going to have to do so.

In a broader context -- that having to do with codified limits on one's ability to seek redress in court -- I have a fairly strong stance: individuals should be permitted freely and to the fullest extent of their ability to do so, be unencumbered with regard to whether they may or may not "have their day" in court.

As a general partner in a deep-pocketed global firm, I'm well aware that occasionally, scurrilous parties will, with the express purpose of extracting a cash settlement while having no sincere desire for justice for a wrong they presume was exacted upon them, sue an entity they see as rich and thus more likely inclined to offer to resolve the matter by making a payment that, to the deep-pocketed organization/individual is "not all that much but that, to the plaintiff, is a tidy sum.

That was a risk at the firm at which I began my professional career, and it is a concern in my current firm. Both organizations implement and enforce internal controls and other managerial processes and policies to minimize the risk of our not prevailing in the event someone does baselessly sue us. We had to do that because the nature of the work we perform is, to a layman, very abstruse. That said, the tactics we've used, by and large, are sufficiently effective, at least in the organizations wherein I've been among the employees or owners.

Be that as it is, other firms, perhaps banks, which certainly are deep-pocketed, may not enjoy the same degree of effectiveness, or they may not have in place policies and procedures similar to ours. Though I've led several engagements for banks, I wouldn't know, for conducting reviews of an entity's legal environment, policies, procedures and culture is not within the scope of work my firm performs.

 

[Spare_change]

Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court. We are on the up and up so nothing has ever come of it but I've always wondered how good a deal that is to sign away your right to use a branch of the government.

Is it a big deal though? People don't have to sign those contracts.....unless you want to finance furniture on credit, use a credit card or buy a car on credit. Still, you don't have to.

Do these clauses effectively remove a citizen's right to due process? I believe so. At my work they do. Do any of you all have lenders available who don't use that arbitration clause? If they are decent pass their name on.

I can see this two ways from a small government point of view I suppose, "If people are dumb enough to sign contracts limiting their right to oxygen or the right to sue a lender so be it."

Is that where we are?

If so can we drop this "christian nation" talk?

Is it a big deal? It has never come up in my life.

Psst ---- it is the rule of law that validates the arbitration process.

If you agree to it, then you have to live by it. That's the law.

 

[Spare_change]

I believe all of the lenders my work uses have clauses in their contracts where the customers agree to take them to arbitration instead of court.

I may be mistaken, but I believe those clauses do not preclude one from participating in a class action. Reducing exposure to class action suits are, I think, the aim of the move to make it more difficult to sue banks.

In most cases the clauses require the two entities to go to arbitration first (even though arbitration is supposed to be instead of).
In some cases if satisfactory terms cannot be agreed upon during arbitration, or agreed upon terms cannot be met (subsequent bankruptcy etc ...) then the entity can choose to sue.

How that may work with class action lawsuits ... I don't know anything about.

.

There is always a way to protest the contents of the contract being signed. That, too, is the law.

But, you have to protest the contract, not the results of the arbitration. If you can prove the contract to be invalid or coerced, then the arbitration can be negated. But - the rule of thumb -- if you signed it, you have to live by it.