RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to JasonD
Re: Nasty
said by JasonD :
the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent Straw man. Here, I'll knock it down for you.
You basically assert that the costs would be higher if the corporation had to defend its business behavior in court. I reply that the customer should not have to trade their legal rights for lower costs--lower costs that are artificially low if they do not represent the true cost of providing the service. Put another way, the customer should not be forced to sell their right to sue for a couple bucks less per month on their phone, broadband or cable bill.
Maybe some business services should be non-existent if the only way they can be provided is to strip the customer of their basic commercial rights. Maybe some business models are inherently invalid and should not be subsidized at the expense of the customer's legal recourse.
Ask any decent attorney what they think about mandatory arbitration. Only the ones making money off of it think it's the grand idea you do.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
