dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed

kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
reply to Dogfather

Re: Nothing new

Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ???



dispatcher21
911 Where is your emergency?

join:2004-01-22
united state
kudos:1

1 edit

I also thought that a federal court stated that arbitration clauses were invalid.

Edit: Here is one story I found on the court case »www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2···ion.html I am sure there are more.



CConverse

join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY

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

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.