RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April

RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 9:46:08 AM)
Hello zenny. Sorry, it's been so long since I read about this, before the internet came along. I think the magazine "Anti-Shyster Lawyer" published by Al Adask may have been the place I saw it. Years ago, as I say, not sure if that's even around anymore. But in any case, do a search with "threat duress coercion" and you should find more about it. That's what 'TDC' stands for. Using that for a search, I found this, which is pretty good at explaining the concept and some real cases where the use of it sometimes worked, sometimes didn't, but it's written by a state AG, so it should be authoritative enough: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm S U M M A R Y 'The words "forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion" or "non assumpsit to the contents of this document" written under a person's signature on a state document may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to form a binding agreement.' But read the whole thing, where the "meeting of the minds" concept and how that relates to contracts is explained.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 12:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You explain how it is an enforceable contract, remember, until death do us part, there shylock, how do you get your pound of flesh on non-performance, and try and use actual law rather than asswipe rantings. you mean defacto when she takes 1/2 your shit and you cry over it the rest of your life LOL what kind of law do you think you are going to see?

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 12:20:55 PM)
that is exactly why you are posting rubbish, all asswipe, it is incorrect in fact and in case, and it is not 1/2, it is equitable which is subjective and could be all, and ....... just blithering ranting of nonsense of no use or value in the real world.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 7:46:12 PM)
not rubbish, no it aint, you are putting me to sleep with another one of your empty rants.

Termyn8or -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/29/2011 4:28:02 AM)
"Can you post a website that explains the use of TDC? In my google searches I have been unable to find more than brief references to it. I assume it's short for something Latin, do you know what? " It's not Latin, it means "Threat, Duress or Coersion". It has worked a few times but not all that well. First of all people used to sign for a driver's license using TDC. In Ohio they will not accept that anymore. Many might say that it means nothing, but if it means nothing why is it not accepted ? It's also not the end all. The only use for it comes when there is litigation, and when you get into that kind of litigation you really need to know what you're doing. Most of the time you will have to represent yourself pro se. You can then do things that lawyers won't. But you have to know almost as much as a lawyer. Most of the time the court will rule on the side of the superior party, that is with more money. Sometimes it's favoritism, sometimes the more affluent party can simply afford to make a better case. The little guy generally has to embarrass the court to get a favorable ruling. (if this has already been covered sorry, this is the first page. I will read on) T^T

EternalHoH -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/29/2011 6:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife When is contractual language ever crystal clear and simple? Contractual language is purposefully designed to obfuscate and mislead. How many contracts do you enter into without reading all the fine print? Do you sit at the car rental counter at the airport going over every detail of the agreement you are about to sign? Before you use that new credit card do you go through all the terms and limitations line-by-line? And then they sit around and scratch their ass wondering why Obama is introducing his Big Government Consumer Protection Bureaucracy.

zenny -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/29/2011 9:37:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Hello zenny. Sorry, it's been so long since I read about this, before the internet came along. I think the magazine "Anti-Shyster Lawyer" published by Al Adask may have been the place I saw it. Years ago, as I say, not sure if that's even around anymore. But in any case, do a search with "threat duress coercion" and you should find more about it. That's what 'TDC' stands for. Using that for a search, I found this, which is pretty good at explaining the concept and some real cases where the use of it sometimes worked, sometimes didn't, but it's written by a state AG, so it should be authoritative enough: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm S U M M A R Y 'The words "forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion" or "non assumpsit to the contents of this document" written under a person's signature on a state document may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to form a binding agreement.' But read the whole thing, where the "meeting of the minds" concept and how that relates to contracts is explained. Thanks for the info Edwynn. I'll check it out.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125