en serio?

Some people are more equal than others.

MONEY!

My vote is for Diana Ross.

It makes sense, I mean how else are these companies going to extract cash from Americans? Friendly language and good customer service? No no no no, the way you generate money off of hard work in America is you lure them into indentured servitude. It has always been this way.

Hopefully the consumer protection agency will review this practice, assuming it still exists after 2012.

This just in: Supreme Court sides with the money...film at 11.

God forbid we give people any sort of recourse when they're forced to sign a legal document that makes War and Peace look like light Sunday afternoon reading in order to use a service that, for all intents and purposes, has become a basic requirement to easily purchase and use goods and services from other vendors.

Then again, I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that moving towards a society where you need to have a lawyer involved to get any sort of modern service is a bad thing.

If I borrow your lawnmower, then go burn down someone's house, should the owner of the burned house have the right to take your lawnmower from me as part of the compensation for my act of arson?

Someone explain to me why this is wrong, and please be gentle cause I honestly don't see it.

So how long before we have a Credit Card Reform Act that requires us to get one?

I hear a symphony...

I remember a thread from last week where some guy said that he felt humiliated because he couldn't use a credit card, especially when out on a date.

IMO, I'd pimp-slap the first tacky demanding biatch that whines or looks down at me just for not flashing around some plastic.

/uses a debit card. Feels just fine.

*finishes scanning tfa*

"Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, says the ruling gives companies that provide credit cards, student loans and car loans the ability to exact any fee, because consumers have no legal recourse."

Okay, that's bad.

nevermind.

Nowhere to run to, baby. Nowhere to hide.

I don't like arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, but a contract's a contract. Don't like it? Petition your legislator to pass a law regarding arbitration clauses in banking agreements.

"...A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law..."

"...nearly every loan agreement now includes an arbitration clause. The main exception is for mortgage loans, where such clauses are prohibited."

A 1996 law, saying you have the right to sue regardless of what the clause in the contract says, was struck down.

A new law, banning these types of clauses in these types of contracts, may pass muster (if it passes Congress, which it will if this is really the will of "America")

Really nothing to see here.

Those bastards.

They better learn their French history.

Why are you blaming the SCOTUS, Subby? The credit card companies loopholed the requirement in the 1996 law by putting a clause in their credit card agreements that users will use arbitration instead of taking them to court. The users signed those agreements and, by doing so, bound themselves to its terms and conditions. But it was all perfectly legal and the SCOTUS cannot nullify all of contract law. It isn't up to them to fix this problem. That's Congress' job. But don't hold your breath.

Disfunction: God forbid we give people any sort of recourse when they're forced to sign a legal document that makes War and Peace look like light Sunday afternoon reading in order to use a service that, for all intents and purposes, has become a basic requirement to easily purchase and use goods and services from other vendors.

Then again, I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that moving towards a society where you need to have a lawyer involved to get any sort of modern service is a bad thing.

Try to get paid by an employer in a manner that doesn't require a bank.

Corporations are the 2nd greatest threat to humanity after religious fundamentalism.

GentDirkly: "...A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law..."

"...nearly every loan agreement now includes an arbitration clause. The main exception is for mortgage loans, where such clauses are prohibited."

A 1996 law, saying you have the right to sue regardless of what the clause in the contract says, was struck down.

A new law, banning these types of clauses in these types of contracts, may pass muster (if it passes Congress, which it will if this is really the will of "America")

Really nothing to see here.

[hahaohwaityoureserious.jpg]

wacka-doo, wacka-doo, wacka-doo

Let them eat....

paygun: So how long before we have a Credit Card Reform Act that requires us to get one?

My cat thinks she's people.



Arbitration claws.

indylaw: I don't like arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, but a contract's a contract. Don't like it? Petition your legislator to pass a law regarding arbitration clauses in banking agreements.

Bankruptcy is for young and old. Especially the young.

rogue49: Welcome to the New United States...

Where Citizens aren't allowed any rights.


...government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation...

Want to learn more?

devildog123: I have a feeling that this is more complicated than the news makes you think. This isn't some 5-4 partisan decision. It was 8-1. You can't say it was Scalia, Thomas, and the mouth breathing Rethuglicans, the way Fark normally likes to portray things like this.

Who was the dissent?

SnakeLee: The good news, though:

This may not be the last word on this issue. Consumer advocates say the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may study arbitration clauses and could ban them from credit card agreements.

That's the thing that just got it's teeth when Obama did the recess appointment, right? Just in time.

What ever happened to being able to have terms in contracts considered unconscionable and therefore stricken from contracts? The whole idea behind arbitration is that companies don't like the legal system so they went and created their own..precisely so they could get away with some underhanded shiat of dubious legality. For example, if they simply 'lost' your checks a few times, you might just be told to sue them in court. But you can't. You have to go to arbitration. They'll probably just tell you that the checks were lost in the mail and then fraudulently cashed by some mail thief person and that the company owes you nothing, case closed. At least in court, the judge probably isn't working for the company to begin with.

It would be like if I was the only car dealership for a hundred miles, and had a clause in all of my contracts that said I have free reign to come and have sex with you at any time. If you refuse, you give me $100 and I leave. The consumer does not benefit from this, nor do they benefit from arbitration.

This just in, Supreme Court holds Freedom to Contract as an important clause.

Ric Romero reporting.

Step One: DON'T SIGN THE FREAKING CONTRACT
Step Two: See above.

/Contract law, how work it

GentDirkly: "...A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law..."

"...nearly every loan agreement now includes an arbitration clause. The main exception is for mortgage loans, where such clauses are prohibited."

A 1996 law, saying you have the right to sue regardless of what the clause in the contract says, was struck down.

A new law, banning these types of clauses in these types of contracts, may pass muster (if it passes Congress, which it will if this is really the will of "America")

Really nothing to see here.

I sort of agree? Alternative Dispute Resolution has been int he US for years. The Federal Arbitration Act has been gaining ground and recognition since it's inception in like... the 1920's. This is pretty much the definition of old news.

I will say this, on the one hand I'm happy people are starting to look at the laws around them and be horrified, on the other, it saddens me deeply to know that most people lived in a fictional America in their heads. Most have never heard of this, most didn't know you could suspend habeus corpus via the constitution rather than contrary to it..... it takes something like this, or the NDAA (which is such a non issue), or SOPA, or whatever the new horrendous law is to get people to care, and dollars to donuts, no one will give a crap in 6 months.... or even remember this happening.

Sigh...

indylaw: I don't like arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, but a contract's a contract. Don't like it? Petition your legislator to pass a law regarding arbitration clauses in banking agreements.

If I had enough money to have any influence on my legislator I'd have a different point of view.... and I'd open a bank.

qorkfiend: devildog123: I have a feeling that this is more complicated than the news makes you think. This isn't some 5-4 partisan decision. It was 8-1. You can't say it was Scalia, Thomas, and the mouth breathing Rethuglicans, the way Fark normally likes to portray things like this.

Who was the dissent?

Ginsburg.

As a married man, I can say that the only action I see now-a-days is the thorough farking I get at the hands of the federal government (thanks NDAA!) and lenders (you rock, BoA!).

Otherwise, you know, everything is fantabulous.

qorkfiend: devildog123: I have a feeling that this is more complicated than the news makes you think. This isn't some 5-4 partisan decision. It was 8-1. You can't say it was Scalia, Thomas, and the mouth breathing Rethuglicans, the way Fark normally likes to portray things like this.

Who was the dissent?

It was Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito for the majority.
Sotomayor in concurrence
Ginsburg in dissent.

meanmutton: qorkfiend: devildog123: I have a feeling that this is more complicated than the news makes you think. This isn't some 5-4 partisan decision. It was 8-1. You can't say it was Scalia, Thomas, and the mouth breathing Rethuglicans, the way Fark normally likes to portray things like this.

Who was the dissent?

It was Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito for the majority.
Sotomayor in concurrence
Ginsburg in dissent.

Second time in this short term she's been on the wrong end of an 8-1 decision.

HotIgneous Intruder: Step One: DON'T SIGN THE FREAKING CONTRACT
Step Two: See above.

/Contract law, how work it

Step 3: Never be able to stay at a hotel
Step 4: Never be able to rent a car
Step 5: Never be able to make purchases online
Step 6: Never be able to use Netflix or other similar CC-monthly-charging services
Step 7: Go cash-in-hand for all purchases
Step 8: Get robbed and go homeless
....

/Modern Life, how work it?

Pants full of macaroni!!: THANKS A LOT FARTBONGO

You know how I know you didn't RTFA? The law that allows the companies to do this was passed in 1996, when the Republicans were in control of the House of Representatives. It was intended to protect consumers, since before that, you had no right to sue a credit card company or bank at all. But, their lawyers, as always, found a way to protect themselves from litigation and screw us.

Don't like this? Write you Congressman and Senators and complain. Then close your credit card accounts. We do have more power than we care to exercise. Biatching in ignorance is easier.