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

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

pahunkboy -> Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 12:30:11 PM)
corporations have more rights then you do! Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits In a huge blow to peeved consumers, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that companies can block customers from joining together in a class-action suit by forcing each complaint into arbitration. More »

DomYngBlk -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 12:32:16 PM)
You are surprised...why?

pahunkboy -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 12:32:27 PM)
LMAO at this comment WTF ever will I do if I can't join all these class action lawsuits that net lawyers millions and me a coupon.....

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 3:48:03 PM)
Arbitration is a good thing but if you do not wish to have binding arbitration resolve your disputes, just don't don't enter into any contracts with arbitration clauses in them. Oh and.... yeah... read the contract... I am about beyond tired of consumers who enter into binding and legal contracts and then cry foul , even when the contractual language is crystal clear. Pretty simple stuff

rulemylife -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 4:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Arbitration is a good thing but if you do not wish to have binding arbitration resolve your disputes, just don't don't enter into any contracts with arbitration clauses in them. Oh and.... yeah... read the contract... I am about beyond tired of consumers who enter into binding and legal contracts and then cry foul , even when the contractual language is crystal clear. Pretty simple stuff 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?

pahunkboy -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 4:34:08 PM)
Not only that- but they reserve the right to change the terms at any time. I personally dont care for "gotcha marketing". So I do not participate in much of it anymore.

eihwaz -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 6:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Arbitration is a good thing but if you do not wish to have binding arbitration resolve your disputes, just don't don't enter into any contracts with arbitration clauses in them. Oh and.... yeah... read the contract... I am about beyond tired of consumers who enter into binding and legal contracts and then cry foul , even when the contractual language is crystal clear. Pretty simple stuff There are many kinds of services you can't obtain without a binding arbitration clause. Try getting a credit card or cellphone service without one. And, for consumers, there's really no way to negotiate the contract -- the corporations have all the power. It's take it or leave it.

JohnWarren -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 6:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz There are many kinds of services you can't obtain without a binding arbitration clause. Try getting a credit card or cellphone service without one. And, for consumers, there's really no way to negotiate the contract -- the corporations have all the power. It's take it or leave it. Ford tried to slip in a binding arbitration clause when I bought a new car. I just crossed it out and had the sales manager initial the crossout with me.

Edwynn -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 6:57:14 PM)
Sir John speaks the truth! That's right folks, whatever you sign, you can cross through what you don't agree to. We can't do that with all these internet terms of use items, but then none of those could be considered legally binding in a court of law anyway, so let them have it. In real life, if one cannot obtain the good or product or service with out accepting the contract as is, then one can write a "TDC" just after their signature, meaning 'under threat, duress, or coercion', which places the contract in the proper legal circumstance. It is in fact not a legal contract in those circumstances, being that the whole concept of a contract is something freely agreed to by both sides.

pahunkboy -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/27/2011 7:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Arbitration is a good thing but if you do not wish to have binding arbitration resolve your disputes, just don't don't enter into any contracts with arbitration clauses in them. Oh and.... yeah... read the contract... I am about beyond tired of consumers who enter into binding and legal contracts and then cry foul , even when the contractual language is crystal clear. Pretty simple stuff There are many kinds of services you can't obtain without a binding arbitration clause. Try getting a credit card or cellphone service without one. And, for consumers, there's really no way to negotiate the contract -- the corporations have all the power. It's take it or leave it. Maybe he knows how to get a clean contract. Do share with us- so we can all be savy.

Termyn8or -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 1:42:24 AM)
Actually I would prefer to litigate myself rather than get fucked by some big law firm. Get ME in court, see what happens and they might beg for class action lawsuits. Class action lawsuits were always a ripoff anyway. This may help if the RIAA ever knocks at the door. And Ken is going to wander in and ask how can I, a peon come up with all this scientific evidence and bullshit but the truth is I wouldn't waste my fucking time. I won't be calling JG WENTWORTH. T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:28:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn being that the whole concept of a contract is something freely agreed to by both sides. ok since everything is contract, how did we agree to be subject-citizens to these corporations we accept as gubbermint? I have no contract with the feds or the state to be their citizen-vassal so how did it happen? They can only tax in their jurisdiction, where is the contract?

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:31:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Actually I would prefer to litigate myself rather than get fucked by some big law firm. Get ME in court, see what happens and they might beg for class action lawsuits. Class action lawsuits were always a ripoff anyway. This may help if the RIAA ever knocks at the door. And Ken is going to wander in and ask how can I, a peon come up with all this scientific evidence and bullshit but the truth is I wouldn't waste my fucking time. I won't be calling JG WENTWORTH. T^T there is a much better way... you sign on individually as co-plaintiffs rather than a class action. If the class action fails everyone loses this way the next one can pick up the baton.

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:40:55 AM)
Not everything is a contract. From this ignorance, flows all other.

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:44:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not everything is a contract. From this ignorance, flows all other. really? what is not a contract when there are more than one person? LOL

MrRodgers -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:51:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy LMAO at this comment WTF ever will I do if I can't join all these class action lawsuits that net lawyers millions and me a coupon..... Mission accomplished...most of you are completely hooked on the superficial here and the wrong central problem in this the continuing 'devolvement' into capitalist fascism. It isn't the suit, or the class action. What is most important here is that the court now sanctions a legal right of your employer to force...FORCE employees to sign away their right to a day in court and thus can force you into arbitration. Once in arbitration your case is no longer in a court of law but subject plaintiffs to decisions subject to the rules of arbitration and whims of the arbiter(s).

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 8:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not everything is a contract. From this ignorance, flows all other. really? what is not a contract when there are more than one person? LOL Marriage vows, for example. There are many others. You really need to know something about law if you are going to babble on as if you have some familiarity with it.

zenny -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 9:11:17 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?

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 9:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not everything is a contract. From this ignorance, flows all other. really? what is not a contract when there are more than one person? LOL Marriage vows, for example. There are many others. You really need to know something about law if you are going to babble on as if you have some familiarity with it. trying to correct me with semantics? do explain how a marriage vow is not a contract.

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits By Chris Morran on April (4/28/2011 9:44:02 AM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699993E-02