Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Nothing new Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses. | |
|
 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Nothing new said by Dogfather  :Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses. Of course you usually agree to that BEFORE you sign up not after they have you locked in with your money and then tell you "oh by the way...". I am sure it does work well for Verizon this way.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
clubs: | Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ??? | |
|
 | |
| | 
CConverse
join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY
| Re: Nothing new Who cares if there are arbitration clauses anyway? Most ISP TOS basically remove all responsibility from the companies as far as honest service provision and billing goes. Even if you tried to sue them, you'd lose because the companies' TOS states that if (insert complaint here) occurs, It's not their fault and the end user is responsible. If there even is an anti-arbitration clause, it's probably put in there to stop the whiners from wasting everyone's time and money. | |
|
| | | Unreasonable
join:2007-10-15
Portland, OR
 ·Integra Telecom
·Comcast
| Re: Nothing new Wow.
You really have NO knowledge of contracts.
I'm no lawyer, but we all have to deal with contracts.
The stuff in the TOS is the company's stated position.
It has zero force of law unless and until it's vetted through the courts. And it's a guaranteed fact that most clauses in these formula contracts would never ever be upheld by any court.
The arbitration clause is just a scare tactic to try to dissuade you from more formal legal remedies where the balance of power shifts to the weaker party.
Your best protection is to agree without ever reading the documents.
Since this is common practice, and the writers of these contracts know this, and take steps to promote keeping the other party in the dark, the odds of them ever being able to enforce any of it are remote.
Having the contract online further advances the consumer's position. Normally, both parties would have the opportunity to edit the contractual documents until a satisfactory 'meeting of the minds' is reached.
With an after the fact 'agreement' presented in a way to make negotiation impractical, I have no doubt that any court would toss it with a quickness.
If I were ever in a dispute, I would simply take the position that the agreement was entered into under duress, there was no meeting of the minds, and that it's null and void.
I would decline any arbitration attempt and proceed with civil action unless the other party were to make me whole. | |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages. | |
|
| |
| | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Lets get some facts straight.
First and foremost it is the courts that should decide if a case has merit or not. If it doesn't, then it should be tossed. EVERY lawsuit should be reviewed by a panel and have the "Duh!" factor applied to it before even considering any evidence to allow it to proceed.
Second, if a company wants to do it then there are 2 things for sure. First, it hurts the consumer more than them. Second, it adds to their bottom line.
Third, companies like Verizon have a full time staff of lawyers that are paid regardless of whether or not they are sued.
Fourth, companies like Verizon use arbitration because it restricts the consumer's right to bring a true hearing against them which would be public record and put the consumer on a somewhat even playing field.
Lastly, companies like Verizon use arbitration because they know without question they will win virtually every case. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new How about that study that showed that Comcast wins 97% of their arbitration cases? Remember, the arbitator is NOT neutral, they're hired by the company. If a high enough percentage of cases don't go their way, they can be replaced. That's not what arbitration is supposed to be. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new The study is here »www.citizen.org/documents/Final_wcover.pdf and it was 94%, not 97 - my mistake.
I have no problem with mandatory arbitration - if the company handling the arbitration doesn't have a relationship with either party. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new I wonder who funds that think tank. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: Nothing new Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new said by Dogfather :Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story. No, you're obviously not following the money going to arbitrators. Why can an arbitrator remain neutral, even though it's in their interest to rule towards the company that hires them, but a think tank must have an agenda influenced by the source of their funding.
Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to following the money. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new said by Dogfather :As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem. Sure it's a problem, remember Arthur Anderson? That's why we have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act now, to try to prevent auditors from getting in bed with the companies they're hired to audit. We need the same thing for arbitration.
Would you be opposed to the consumer choosing the arbitrator, with the loser paying the costs? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. | |
|
| | | | KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
·Comcast
| Verizon will fix my notebook? | |
|
| | | | | |
| | |
| | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new Sure seems like 30 seconds but if I counted it off it's probably 15 or 20. Damn lawyers. They're the scourge of the Earth. | |
|
| | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by Dogfather :said by ptrowski :True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages. Where are you getting that the agreement is a few thousand pages? A 2,000 word service agreement isn't unusual in the slightest and has to be there, like arbitration, to combat the litany of bloodsucking ambulance chasers. Blame the bloodsucking lawyers for these hoops, not Verizon. Hell, I have to wait 30 seconds to get to my Acura's navi screen because of blood sucking lawyers who would sue Acura if some dumbass drove into a lake. Meanwhile she was told ahead of time that to get the deal she would have to go online and read the agreement. "This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated." | |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shorter than a few thousand pages. | |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| so you're saying it's ok for corporations to screw customers or are you just commenting that everyone does it these days which would seem that a return to regulation would be a welcome thing for consumers especially now that the economy is collapsing, the dollar is about worthless and inflation is pretty bad.... with the recession we are now in maybe the corporate apologists on this site are ready to admit that some government regulation and over site is good. Alan Greenspans deregulate and let the market regulate itself sure was a good idea. did anyone here notice last week we officially became the number 2 economy in the world ? the EU is now number one. | |
|
| |
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: Nothing new Wait, so you're saying it's OK for a company to not disclose a contract that you have with them until after you've agreed to it? Contract law generally requires you to know what you're signing for the contract to be enforcable. | |
|
| | | |
| |
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
1 edit | Verizons corporate policies of "it's ok" to screw customers and deny them due process contributes heavily to the overall problem of commerce here in the United States and the overall problem of the "greed is good" philosophy. it's not good when it wrecks an economy like it has done here. how can you say it's ok for a corporation to screw customers? why are they afraid of full disclosure prior to signing up customers? you don't think that's wrong and after locking the customer into an unfair contract they should not be allowed to sue the corporation or ask for their money back without a termination fee? you obviously either work for Verizon or a lobbyist. a telecom company is no different than a lender if it screws people. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
