| reply to dispatcher21
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. |
|
|
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to vpoko
I wonder who funds that think tank. |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | 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? |
|
| reply to Dogfather
Verizon will fix my notebook? |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | reply to vpoko
said by vpoko: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? Cause I know who funds them (arbitrators) and its' easy to be neutral.
In my business I pay my worker's comp auditor, ISO auditor, and a few others and they tell me to fix stuff and I don't fire them for it.
Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to KraziJoe
said by KraziJoe:Verizon will fix my notebook? If they're responsible for destroying it. »www.macwork.com/2006/11/28/pics-···inferno/ |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to Dogfather
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. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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.
No double standard. I always follow the money. Arbitration is far better that subscribers giving millions to greedy bloodsucking lawyers because the ISP blows up a notebook. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | 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? |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to Dogfather
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." |
|
| reply to CConverse
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. |
|
