Having failed at VW dealership, a Mother Jones reporter continued her journey to buy a car without signing an arbitration. She tried half a dozen dealerships over a month, and none of them would let her buy a car without signing an agreement waiving her right to sue. Finally, she found the car she wanted from a guy who was selling it on his own, but then the loan document from her bank contained a huge arbitration clause.
The Quest for a Car, Sans Arbitration Clause [Mother Jones]
PREVIOUSLY: Cars And Binding Mandatory Arbitration
(Photo: Ben Popken)
More From Consumerist
-
Guy Figures If He Boots His Own Car, Thieves Won’t Be So Tempted To Steal It
-
Investigation Finds Car Dealers Basically Setting Customers Up To Fail So They Can Repossess & Resell Vehicles
-
Best Buy Messes Up Remote Starter Install, Turns Car Into Non-Starter
-
Avis Splashes Out $500 Million To Buy Itself Something Nice — Zipcar
-
Owning An Electric Vehicle Could Get You A Sweet Deal On Car Insurance
And one further point, I have no doubt Mother Jones is a corporation set up to protect their company, as any smart business would…
@htrodblder: There is a big difference between mandatory binding arbitration and an agreement to litigate in a specific location. Litigation in any actual court of law is protected by many things, including rules of evidence, right to an attorney, right to a trial by jury, right of appeal. Mandatory binding arbitration asks you to sign away your right to a trial.
Mandatory binding arbitration clauses ask you to sign away your Seventh Amendment rights. That’s not ok. I do not lightly sign away my constitutionally protected rights.
Hold up… I thought you couldn’t waive away your right to sue?
@mac-phisto: Well, gee. Then that seems to me like a darn good incentive to not screw customers such that you have to worry about being sued! If you DO get someone angry at you, apologize (and be sincere about it) instead of treating them like dirt, too; there was a study done that showed that people who received honest apologies were less likely to actually go to court.
Apologies and honesty are free. Dishonesty, rightfully, is not.
@swalve: I don’t think you read the right case.
In Randolph, the consumer attempted to sue her lender under various federal statutes, but the lender filed a motion to compel arbitration; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the consumer’s complaint. The appellate life of the case dealt with whether the consumer could afford to pay for arbitration; the Eleventh Circuit said the consumer might not have been able to afford it and held the arbitration clause unenforceable, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and held the arbitration clause unenforceable.
So, this actually IS a case of a consumer trying to sue and being denied. She tried to sue for violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and was dismissed because she had signed an arbitration agreement.
@ct03: Dammit. I meant to say “…the Supreme Court overturned that decision and held the arbitration clause ENFORCEABLE.”
@darkclawsofchaos:
My wife and I can’t find an OB/GYN for our first baby that doesnt force us to sign an arbitraion clause- doctors are starting to do it!
@killthepoodle: Keep looking. There are so many doctors out there that you’re bound to find one. THat said, that’s ridiculous.
If someone came in, specifically looking for a no arbitration deal, I would send them away. Who wants to deal with someone who is obviously looking for that golden ticket lawsuit?
An interesting parallel from the credit card industry: a recent study found that the arbitrators (who have a financial incentive to keep the business of the banks) favor the banks in something like 94-95% of the cases, frequently ignore their own process guidelines, and offer little or no recourse for the customer after the initial ruling. You can read about it here: [www.paymentsnews.com] Just open the PDF report.
D.