Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

i remember specifically my legal prof telling us how form contracts, the kind you must sign to have a credit card or cell phone, or any phone, or anything at all. are occasionally being thrown out because they are not a true contract

a contract is when 2 people or groups sit down and negotiate in good faith, these form contracts are a corporation tossing a piece of paper at you and saying "sign or f**k off"
the only power against this is the consumers power to not spend with this business, but this is not possible since every business now does this. try to get a service without agreeing to binding arbitration in case of a dispute, just try, you wont find a company that offers it, and that is only an example


should we try to make legslation clarifying what a business of X size can and cannot require in a contract with an individual, or should we leave it to the courts to come up with common law, keep in mind that the second method is rather confusing

[LostSoul3412]

Yeah! Store owners should have every right to discriminate against customers!

Besides, standard prices are just too convienent, and everyone loves to haggle!

[LeopardPM]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Yeah! Store owners should have every right to discriminate against customers!
totally agree (I think you were joking, but, I am not)

Quote: Besides, standard prices are just too convienent, and everyone loves to haggle!
Price standardization is a purely market phenomenon, whats wrong with it?

[mathurin]

wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract

how you decided that this was about store owners discriminating (they can btw "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" sound familiar) and haggling for prices i will never know, last i checked i didnt sign a contract to enter the grocery store and buy bread, normal day to day buying would remain the same

[LeopardPM]

mathurin wrote: wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract
um, you said 'force' - are you implying that the company made the client sign the contract under threat of violence? If the person didn't sign, and therefore didn't get access to whatever benefits might have accrued from the contract (goods, services, etc), was he somehow made worse off or punished compared to the company not being in existence at all?

[Nathyn]

mathurin wrote: i remember specifically my legal prof telling us how form contracts, the kind you must sign to have a credit card or cell phone, or any phone, or anything at all. are occasionally being thrown out because they are not a true contract

a contract is when 2 people or groups sit down and negotiate in good faith, these form contracts are a corporation tossing a piece of paper at you and saying "sign or f**k off"
the only power against this is the consumers power to not spend with this business, but this is not possible since every business now does this. try to get a service without agreeing to binding arbitration in case of a dispute, just try, you wont find a company that offers it, and that is only an example


should we try to make legslation clarifying what a business of X size can and cannot require in a contract with an individual, or should we leave it to the courts to come up with common law, keep in mind that the second method is rather confusing
Contracts should eventually, hopefully be abolished altogether. A signature on a piece of paper says nothing about the justice of a particular agreement, nor does a piece of paper necessarily give anyone a right to anything. If the Constitution is unjust, it should be ignored. And so, too, if any contract or law is unjust, it is invalid.

Contracts are often exploitative, because one member of the contract has a government established monopoly over natural resources (referred to as "property"). Though the contractor's agreement is subject to supply and demand, the conditions will inherently be in the rich man's favor. Hence, cell phone companies can charge you hundreds of dollars for simply wanting to end the contract. And mortgages contain clauses allowing the wealthy thieves to foreclose on a particular person's home for any reason, whatsoever, wiping out all equity and leaving them homeless.

As a result of assets of bargaining being disproportionately distributed, contracts are no longer simple, but are purposely exhaustive, precisely because it enables the wealthy to exploit the poor precisely because people are far too lazy to read 10 pages of text, much of which probably isn't relevant to them because companies print contracts that are one-size-fits-all. Until Capitalism is abolished, this will be the case.

However, from an economic perspective, it's fairly unpragmatic to eliminate contracts or else, under our current conditions of scarcity, we'd all simply riot and take what we want. And I suspect that any regulation or restriction of contracts would pose negative economic consequences.

If you, for example, make online or over-the-phone contracts invalid, you'd shut off an entire market of business. If you allowed people to sue, not because contracts were violated, but because they are simply "unfair," first of all, you create political corruption. Politicians would help their wealthy friends get out of contracts to others. Secondly, businesses would make less contracts and have to spend more time in establishing them, out of the fear of being sued. And if the government, as you suggested, restricts the terms under which some contracts may be issued, then again, you're going to restrict free trade, which is a burden to economic growth. Parties who wish to voluntarily make contractual agreements that both agree are fair would not be able to do so because of an arbitrary law that prevents all from making such contracts, because under some circumstances, many would regard such as unfair.

And so, such restriction would drive up prices, drive up inflation, and slow economic growth.

[gavnook]

I do not favor restricting contract rights of anyone. Now mathurin, I'm curious as to what things in these types of contracts you find objectionable or think should be unenforceble. You seem to have a problem with arbitration clauses.

Also, you can get wireless phone service without a contract, but your phone won't be as cool and you pay a lot more per minute.

[perdidochas]

mathurin wrote: i remember specifically my legal prof telling us how form contracts, the kind you must sign to have a credit card or cell phone, or any phone, or anything at all. are occasionally being thrown out because they are not a true contract

a contract is when 2 people or groups sit down and negotiate in good faith, these form contracts are a corporation tossing a piece of paper at you and saying "sign or f**k off"

Any contract is that way. If one party wants they can hold firm to what they want. That's what these companies are doing. Forcing any party by law to change terms in a contract is ridiculous.


mathurin wrote: the only power against this is the consumers power to not spend with this business, but this is not possible since every business now does this. try to get a service without agreeing to binding arbitration in case of a dispute, just try, you wont find a company that offers it, and that is only an example

Well, then you're out of luck. If I sell a product with certain conditions, and every other seller has the same conditions, then you need to either agree, or not use our services. I don't see the big deal.


mathurin wrote: should we try to make legslation clarifying what a business of X size can and cannot require in a contract with an individual, or should we leave it to the courts to come up with common law, keep in mind that the second method is rather confusing

I think there already is legislation that controls contracts. Let's leave the laws alone. The main problem is that people aren't truly reading their contracts, and are then objecting to them post-signing. I myself have done that, but I use common sense, and attribute it to my foolishness for agreeing to something that I didn't thoroughly read.

[yojimbo22]

mathurin wrote: i remember specifically my legal prof telling us how form contracts, the kind you must sign to have a credit card or cell phone, or any phone, or anything at all. are occasionally being thrown out because they are not a true contract

a contract is when 2 people or groups sit down and negotiate in good faith, these form contracts are a corporation tossing a piece of paper at you and saying "sign or f**k off"
the only power against this is the consumers power to not spend with this business, but this is not possible since every business now does this. try to get a service without agreeing to binding arbitration in case of a dispute, just try, you wont find a company that offers it, and that is only an example


should we try to make legslation clarifying what a business of X size can and cannot require in a contract with an individual, or should we leave it to the courts to come up with common law, keep in mind that the second method is rather confusing

with the number of transactions a business goes through today, it would be unreasonalbe, and maybe even impossible, to ask businesses to negotiate contracts with each customer - it would just make the economy grind to a halt... Caveat Emptor, that is what matters here, so if you don't like a standard form contract - ask to change what you don't like (you can do that)... i they say no, then don't get it if the contract is that important... contracts become more and more negotiable as the price of the good increases, so there really should be no problem as strict standard froms can only screw you up on things like phone contracts and such... at least that is my experience

[mathurin]

go ask about changing a form contract and you will be laughed at, even more expensive items dont negotiate, in part because our legal system has become so unwieldy that you need a lawyer to make anything

i dont like abitration clauses because they skip one of our countries best concepts, juries, if 2 companies or people on reasonably equal footing agree to it then fine, but otherwise it is a company dictating how and where conflicts can be resolved, whats next, complaints can only be filed under a full moon in a freshly plowed field (sarcasm)

while a judge knows law better than a group of citizens, they generally know the right and wrong, our laws have some specific wording in them, it says "reasonable person" and the general definition of that is what a jury thinks a reasonable person would think
as i already stated, the courts have begun to overturn a few of these (if i recall the wording was "lack of consideration") so even if you want to deny it, the nature of common law is already changing, i am proposing we use legislation to clarify this instead of letting judges design the law at their whim

[yojimbo22]

mathurin wrote: go ask about changing a form contract and you will be laughed at, even more expensive items dont negotiate, in part because our legal system has become so unwieldy that you need a lawyer to make anything

i dont like abitration clauses because they skip one of our countries best concepts, juries, if 2 companies or people on reasonably equal footing agree to it then fine, but otherwise it is a company dictating how and where conflicts can be resolved, whats next, complaints can only be filed under a full moon in a freshly plowed field (sarcasm)

while a judge knows law better than a group of citizens, they generally know the right and wrong, our laws have some specific wording in them, it says "reasonable person" and the general definition of that is what a jury thinks a reasonable person would think
as i already stated, the courts have begun to overturn a few of these (if i recall the wording was "lack of consideration") so even if you want to deny it, the nature of common law is already changing, i am proposing we use legislation to clarify this instead of letting judges design the law at their whim

Well, I'm sure you're right about the US - I live in the UK at the moment, and I've negotiated on standard forms a few times... granted it's not something they like to change them but i have been succesful a few times... not major points mind you, just ones I didn't like. But even still, I think that without them the modern economy would have difficulty performing as it does.

[Kt]

People shouldn't be able to sign away their right to the justice system, out-of court arbitration is simply wrong and shouldn't be tolerated unless both parties agree to it AFTER the dispute, not in a contract signed before the dispute.

[Atlas Bergeron]

mathurin wrote: wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract
what are you talking about, how is it not a choice?
Either sign the contract, or like you said, f#$k off. The choice falls only between the buisness and the consumer, and your damn wrong that it isn't a choice.

Quote: how you decided that this was about store owners discriminating (they can btw "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" sound familiar) and haggling for prices i will never know, last i checked i didnt sign a contract to enter the grocery store and buy bread, normal day to day buying would remain the same
buisnesses should have that right (and, in the current attitudes of society, if you did have that attidude, you would not have a buisness for long. Not beucase of the gov, but becuase you wouldn't sell anything).

I think it is you that is confused.

[mathurin]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract
what are you talking about, how is it not a choice?
Either sign the contract, or like you said, f#$k off. The choice falls only between the buisness and the consumer, and your damn wrong that it isn't a choice.

so it is a choice? so how can you get a home without signing one?

basically people are saying let the market dictate, if people dont want this then they wont buy it, thats bull and if you knew jack you would know
heard about the FDA and its creation, do alittle reading about how it came about, formaldahyde in milk, various dangerous chemicals in meats, people then had a choice to buy or not EXCEPT EVERYONE DID IT SO THERE WAS NO CHOICE!!

i love capitalism, the market economy, but there must be some controls, always, we already have limitations on contracts, and the limitations that i speak of are already coming about through common law, so stop acting like this is some kind of revolutionary idea IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING!
judges are doing it even now. it is unjust to remove a complaint method that is otherwise your right
in another 10 years or so it will probably be an indelible part of common law, i just would like to speed up and clarify the process, so businesses know where they stand and can be better prepared for having sections of their contracts thrown out

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: how you decided that this was about store owners discriminating (they can btw "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" sound familiar) and haggling for prices i will never know, last i checked i didnt sign a contract to enter the grocery store and buy bread, normal day to day buying would remain the same
buisnesses should have that right (and, in the current attitudes of society, if you did have that attidude, you would not have a buisness for long. Not beucase of the gov, but becuase you wouldn't sell anything).

I think it is you that is confused.

i regularly throw high school kids off our lot at a drive in, that is disciminating
at one store i worked at i was the only one who actually helped black people, and that store is still doing well


if i am confused then please, help me out here


then tell me how i am confused

[Atlas Bergeron]

mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract
what are you talking about, how is it not a choice?
Either sign the contract, or like you said, f#$k off. The choice falls only between the buisness and the consumer, and your damn wrong that it isn't a choice.

so it is a choice? so how can you get a home without signing one?

basically people are saying let the market dictate, if people dont want this then they wont buy it, thats bull and if you knew jack you would know
heard about the FDA and its creation, do alittle reading about how it came about, formaldahyde in milk, various dangerous chemicals in meats, people then had a choice to buy or not EXCEPT EVERYONE DID IT SO THERE WAS NO CHOICE!!

i love capitalism, the market economy, but there must be some controls, always, we already have limitations on contracts, and the limitations that i speak of are already coming about through common law, so stop acting like this is some kind of revolutionary idea IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING!
judges are doing it even now. it is unjust to remove a complaint method that is otherwise your right
in another 10 years or so it will probably be an indelible part of common law, i just would like to speed up and clarify the process, so businesses know where they stand and can be better prepared for having sections of their contracts thrown out
all these problems could be more easily and better solved in a judicial system, not in the legislature.

If you sell soured milk, and someone dies from it, and you guarantee that the milk is quality, then you can be sued. These kind of things can be taken care of more rationally without the government pretending it has moral authority.

And as for homes, its simple, GO WITH A DIFFERNT CONTRACTER.

If it is so important for you, it will probably be importnat for other people. If that is the case that means that a demand is created. If a demand is created that creates the potentiol for profits and buisnesses who won't require you to sign such things. I think it is you who need so read a little--except about ecconomics.

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: how you decided that this was about store owners discriminating (they can btw "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" sound familiar) and haggling for prices i will never know, last i checked i didnt sign a contract to enter the grocery store and buy bread, normal day to day buying would remain the same
buisnesses should have that right (and, in the current attitudes of society, if you did have that attidude, you would not have a buisness for long. Not beucase of the gov, but becuase you wouldn't sell anything).

I think it is you that is confused.

i regularly throw high school kids off our lot at a drive in, that is disciminating
at one store i worked at i was the only one who actually helped black people, and that store is still doing well


if i am confused then please, help me out here

Some stores may be able to do it, but not many can (or would even want to). If they did, nobody would buy from them.

and don't compare apples and oranges. Discriminating based on age and discriminating based on race are two differnt things. That is hardly a valid argument.


then tell me how i am confused[/quote]

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
and don't compare apples and oranges. Discriminating based on age and discriminating based on race are two differnt things. That is hardly a valid argument.

not at all! Discrimination is just 'making a choice' - if I make a choice to hire a young person verus an old person, it is the same thing as hiring a black person versus a white perosn. Descriminating between options is how we learn and progress.

Yes, I happen to agree that a person making the choice to not hire a black person solely because of his skin color is a very stupid and inefficient determination of hiring an employee... but, dang it, he has that right! If I have a hole to be dug in my back yard, and 2 people show up for the job, a big strong guy and a beautiful sexy girl, and I decide that I would rather pay the sexy girl to do the labor inefficiently (as far as getting holes dug) then, dang nabbit, I have that right! Its my hole to be dug, my money I am spending, and I am not forcing either person to do something they didn't agree to. Now, if I make a living digging holes for folks, and the money I earn is based upon the number of holes dug in a given period of time, then I would probably go out of business by hiring sexy women instead of big strong males - this is how the market tends to skew things towards the most efficient and desirable. Simply said, discriminating by race is most likely NOT the most efficient method for determining qualifications for a job, but, it is a person's right to associate (or not to associate) with whomever they desire as long as the other person agrees. The market will guide the stronger folks towards the hole digging (and reward them aptly) and the smarter folks towards the 'smart' vocations (economics? lol) and reward them aptly, and the short folks, and the tall folks, the skinny folks, the fat folks, the hairy folks, and the naked folks - just let the market work!

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
and don't compare apples and oranges. Discriminating based on age and discriminating based on race are two differnt things. That is hardly a valid argument.

not at all! Discrimination is just 'making a choice' - if I make a choice to hire a young person verus an old person, it is the same thing as hiring a black person versus a white perosn. Descriminating between options is how we learn and progress.

Yes, I happen to agree that a person making the choice to not hire a black person solely because of his skin color is a very stupid and inefficient determination of hiring an employee... but, dang it, he has that right! If I have a hole to be dug in my back yard, and 2 people show up for the job, a big strong guy and a beautiful sexy girl, and I decide that I would rather pay the sexy girl to do the labor inefficiently (as far as getting holes dug) then, dang nabbit, I have that right! Its my hole to be dug, my money I am spending, and I am not forcing either person to do something they didn't agree to. Now, if I make a living digging holes for folks, and the money I earn is based upon the number of holes dug in a given period of time, then I would probably go out of business by hiring sexy women instead of big strong males - this is how the market tends to skew things towards the most efficient and desirable. Simply said, discriminating by race is most likely NOT the most efficient method for determining qualifications for a job, but, it is a person's right to associate (or not to associate) with whomever they desire as long as the other person agrees. The market will guide the stronger folks towards the hole digging (and reward them aptly) and the smarter folks towards the 'smart' vocations (economics? lol) and reward them aptly, and the short folks, and the tall folks, the skinny folks, the fat folks, the hairy folks, and the naked folks - just let the market work!

That is exactly what I said, just not in so many words.

What I meant with the 'apples and oranges' tidbit was that people are not going to decide to not buy from your buisness becuase you kicked out a couple teenagers. They ARE going to decide not to go to your buisness if you kick out a couple of civil black men. I, for one, would not buy from a racist store unless I aboslutely had to.

[gavnook]

Helena` wrote: People shouldn't be able to sign away their right to the justice system, out-of court arbitration is simply wrong and shouldn't be tolerated unless both parties agree to it AFTER the dispute, not in a contract signed before the dispute.

Why?

[=CNP=]

There should be somethings that nobody has the power to sign away.


But all these problems are the direct cause of the American legal system and sue-hungry nation that is has become.

American law is flawed and broken, just like any other system that has a difference between technicaly right and right.

This problem is made worse by laweres, who are able to take full advantage of that, and because of American society, be free of moral guilt when they do it.


The end result is injustice, crooks sueing victims, consumers sueing over their own stupidity, and corperations forces people to sign over half their rights.



Just another way American is destroying itself. :?

[mathurin]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: wow, somebody doesnt get it

let me elaborate, by signing the contract, you have agreed to binding arbitration, meaning that you have given up the ability to take the company to a jury trial in case of conflict, and you have also given up the ability to join with others in a class action lawsuit. should a large company be allowed to force these kind of concessions, since it isnt really a choice. essentially, should we lay down more ground rules for what can and cannot be signed away in a contract
what are you talking about, how is it not a choice?
Either sign the contract, or like you said, f#$k off. The choice falls only between the buisness and the consumer, and your damn wrong that it isn't a choice.

so it is a choice? so how can you get a home without signing one?

basically people are saying let the market dictate, if people dont want this then they wont buy it, thats bull and if you knew jack you would know
heard about the FDA and its creation, do alittle reading about how it came about, formaldahyde in milk, various dangerous chemicals in meats, people then had a choice to buy or not EXCEPT EVERYONE DID IT SO THERE WAS NO CHOICE!!

i love capitalism, the market economy, but there must be some controls, always, we already have limitations on contracts, and the limitations that i speak of are already coming about through common law, so stop acting like this is some kind of revolutionary idea IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING!
judges are doing it even now. it is unjust to remove a complaint method that is otherwise your right
in another 10 years or so it will probably be an indelible part of common law, i just would like to speed up and clarify the process, so businesses know where they stand and can be better prepared for having sections of their contracts thrown out
all these problems could be more easily and better solved in a judicial system, not in the legislature.

If you sell soured milk, and someone dies from it, and you guarantee that the milk is quality, then you can be sued. These kind of things can be taken care of more rationally without the government pretending it has moral authority.

And as for homes, its simple, GO WITH A DIFFERNT CONTRACTER.

If it is so important for you, it will probably be importnat for other people. If that is the case that means that a demand is created. If a demand is created that creates the potentiol for profits and buisnesses who won't require you to sign such things. I think it is you who need so read a little--except about ecconomics.

and do note (nobody else has) that the justice system has already begun throwing out form contracts, so in a way it is already dealing with it, i am merely suggesting standardization to prevent abuse of vague common law

gee, sounds simple, except once again, there is no alternative choice, nobody will currently do that unless they are tiny business with no legal understanding
this is mere speculation at this point, but i bet it would be difficult to get insurance without such things

is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
wiseass

the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying



Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: how you decided that this was about store owners discriminating (they can btw "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" sound familiar) and haggling for prices i will never know, last i checked i didnt sign a contract to enter the grocery store and buy bread, normal day to day buying would remain the same
buisnesses should have that right (and, in the current attitudes of society, if you did have that attidude, you would not have a buisness for long. Not beucase of the gov, but becuase you wouldn't sell anything).

I think it is you that is confused.

i regularly throw high school kids off our lot at a drive in, that is disciminating
at one store i worked at i was the only one who actually helped black people, and that store is still doing well


if i am confused then please, help me out here

Some stores may be able to do it, but not many can (or would even want to). If they did, nobody would buy from them.

and don't compare apples and oranges. Discriminating based on age and discriminating based on race are two differnt things. That is hardly a valid argument.


then tell me how i am confused [/quote]
you somehow think that this is about discrimination, when it is everything but, so my confusion is how this is about discrimination

actually, discriminating based on race and age in hiring is equally illegal, i also was showing you 2 examples of discrimination, it was not a comparison at all, merely giving you 2 examples of discrimination that had not damaged the business, both stores have been in existence for over 20 years, the passively racial discriminating store has been in business for 30 years at present location, and for over 50 before then, it has gone from father to son, and will soon be passed again



how about this
Quote:
Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html


in general is is accepted that a business cannot infringe on your rights, however in this instance i feel that businesses should be bound by this, from the bill of rights



while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times