The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

It just bizare to watch people who claim to be Americans fight to have their power stripped from them.


The cons sure have had a number done on their senses
 
Nothing has been taken away from anybody.
If the Concepcions had read the contract they would have known that they had to pay the sales tax on the free phone.
 
There is no class action suit anymore.

That means every individual has to have the money to fight their own case against muliti billionare companies.

You are cheering your own raping
 
Nothing has been taken away from anybody.
If the Concepcions had read the contract they would have known that they had to pay the sales tax on the free phone.

Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.
 
Had to go to the links in the link to get any facts;

In its 5-4 decision in Concepcion, the Court upheld the enforceability of a clause in a consumer contract which required the respective consumer to arbitrate any claim, regardless of how small the claim, and banned the consumer from joining, being part of or starting a class action. The issue was whether such a clause is enforceable or whether it becomes an unconscionable impediment to consumers realistically being able to pursue legitimate claims. The Court held that such a clause, which bans resort to the class action procedure, was enforceable. This is true, according to the Court, even though the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), by its terms, allows one contesting such a clause to assert all of the standard state law defenses to attack its enforceability, including the defense of unconscionability (e.g., the FAA expressly states that an arbitration clause shall be enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract" 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2). That balancing language (or the "savings clause," as it is known) was previously construed to require that arbitration clauses be fair and not constitute an attempt to prevent a party from being able to realistically avail themselves of the remedy.

You sign a contract you agree to follow what it says.

Unless the tards wanna toss out the law, I suggest you suck it up and grow up just a tad.
 
Last edited:
Nothing has been taken away from anybody.
If the Concepcions had read the contract they would have known that they had to pay the sales tax on the free phone.

Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.

That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.
 
There is no class action suit anymore.

That means every individual has to have the money to fight their own case against muliti billionare companies.

You are cheering your own raping

You did not read the court document did you?

Do you understand it?

In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Concepcion, their loss was $30.32. This small amount, aggregated over thousands of customers, was estimated to be millions of dollars by which AT&T was alleged to have been unjustly enriched. The majority opinion by Justice Scalia (which was joined by Roberts, Ch. J., Thomas, Kennedy and Alito, J.J.), held that the Concepcions were barred from bringing their claim as a class action and were limited by the clause to pursuing their claim solely in an individual arbitration proceeding, even if that resulted, as a practical matter, in the inability to bring the claim at all.

In consumer fraud cases such as this -- where only a little money is taken from the pockets of each consumer, but over the length of the practice, the improper transactions occur hundreds or thousands of times, thus allowing corporations to reap unjust benefits at a significant cost to large numbers of consumers -- no single consumer could realistically challenge the practice. Not being able to aggregate claims with others who have the same claim means that no one consumer would bring such a claim individually.

The use of the arbitration clause to ban any class action and require only individual arbitration has been seen by other courts as a blatant attempt at "remedy stripping." The Concepcion majority seemed to recognize this. Justice Scalia stated: "The dissent claims that class proceedings are necessary to prosecute small-dollar claims that might otherwise slip through the legal system. . . . But States cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA even if it is desirable for unrelated purposes." (Emphasis added). Translation: even though it is unfair to require a consumer to arbitrate, individually, a $30.32 claim, that's just too bad.

As the dissent reminds us: "What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?" And notes, "The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30." (Breyer, J., writing, with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagen, J.J., joining). Thus, both the majority and the dissent acknowledged that legitimate claims will be effectively barred by the rule established by the Court. ref
 
Nothing has been taken away from anybody.
If the Concepcions had read the contract they would have known that they had to pay the sales tax on the free phone.

Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.

That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.

I think you missed the tone of my post...insert dripping sarcasm.
 
Have read the case yet, so I won't comment on it. But class actions can and do get out of hand. I will take the Dell Financial on I join. I got a wopping $11 after attorney's fees. I don't even remember the harm I got, but I remember the letter I recented adn the free lunch it bought me.

$16 (with attorney's fee) x say conservatively 1 million people = $16 million to the big bad corporation. Consumers like me felt little pain or effect, but the corporation take a huge slap in the face. I can understand why the standard can be questioned!
 
Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.

That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.

I think you missed the tone of my post...insert dripping sarcasm.

Sorry miss read your sarcasm. But what you said can be interpreted in several ways.That is a problem in message boards when you can't see the persons face.
 
That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.

I think you missed the tone of my post...insert dripping sarcasm.

Sorry miss read your sarcasm. But what you said can be interpreted in several ways.That is a problem in message boards when you can't see the persons face.

My point: there is no way something that simple would make it to the Supreme Court, and elicit a 5/4 split.
 
Nothing has been taken away from anybody.
If the Concepcions had read the contract they would have known that they had to pay the sales tax on the free phone.

Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.

That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.

Do you understand in that case the burns the woman recieved?
 
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Burn incidentOn February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.
 
Interesting...something you claim is a simple matter of not reading a contract. Something that would have been thrown out in even a small claims court, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I guess I'll just wait for the turnip truck I fell off of to come back.

That is a big problem we have in our court system. It should have been thrown out, but then the lawyers would not have made their money would they?
They tried to get money from the company.Same concept with the lady that spilled her coffee on herself and got money,that should have been thrown out too.

Do you understand in that case the burns the woman recieved?

Yes and the idiot did it to herself, everybody knows that a cup of coffee is hot.She should have put it in a holder not between her legs.
 
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Burn incidentOn February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

Good lord

Are you seriously using that idiot as a good example of suing corporations?

She's mocked by thinking people coast to coast. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top