The end of American Class-Action Lawsuits?

[Den Valdron]

I'm not a high powered lawyer and never claimed to be but I do a thing or two about contracts. If a contract says that the terms can be changed at any time and you agree to that by signing your name. Guess what. You agree to that. Its not void. Its not a breach. It is part of the contract you agreed to. And there is no constitutional component at all to this.

Wow, I'm glad you're not a high powered lawyer, because, although you do know a thing or two about contracts, its pretty clear that there's one or two things you don't know about contracts.

You don't know, for instance, that a contract is merely one form of agreement. There are all sorts of agreements, only a few of them are contracts.

You don't seem to appreciate that a contract need not be endorsed by signing one's name. A verbal acceptance, or acceptance by action, by making a mark, by performance all makes a contract. A counter-offer can be made and that, if accepted, will make a binding contract.

You clearly don't understand this whole concept of 'certainty' in contracts, which Courts have over the last 800 years, set great store by. Certainty of parties, certainty of offer, certainty of consideration, certainty of acceptance and certainty of terms.

If the contract says that the terms can be unilaterally changed at any time by one of the parties... guess what, it's not a contract. It lacks requisite certainty. It may be an agreement, an understanding, an arrangement between the parties. But it is not a contract as that term is understood and recognized in law, and it is not legally enforceable. Void, not breached, rescinded, repudiated. Void - it was never a contract. It could never be a contract, any more than a Giraffe could be a dog just because you decided to call him Spot.

I'll tell you a secret. I might know a little bit more about the law than the average bear, booboo.

And in any case, at this basic level, we're talking about High School level basic law stuff.

 

[Den Valdron]

Gee I didn't know some had to be an expert on something to be opposed to it or understand how they worked.

But you must admit that it surely do help! Generally, I find a little knowledge to be better than stunning ignorance, and a lot of knowledge to be better than a little knowledge.

Can you say for sure what his impression of class action is indeed incorrect. Since you are an expert. I mean you'd have to be to question his expertise right? Otherwise you just as wrong as he is.

I don't have to be a chicken to know that an egg is rotten.

ROTFL

 

[skadistic]

But you must admit that it surely do help! Generally, I find a little knowledge to be better than stunning ignorance, and a lot of knowledge to be better than a little knowledge.



I don't have to be a chicken to know that an egg is rotten.

ROTFL

So you can't say his understanding is incorrect. If fact it isn't. Thats how the majority of class actions work. Whats the going rate for the lawyer 30 - 33%.

 

[skadistic]

Wow, I'm glad you're not a high powered lawyer, because, although you do know a thing or two about contracts, its pretty clear that there's one or two things you don't know about contracts.

You don't know, for instance, that a contract is merely one form of agreement. There are all sorts of agreements, only a few of them are contracts.And we are talking about contracts here so whats your point exactly?

You don't seem to appreciate that a contract need not be endorsed by signing one's name. Really where did I say that? And how many phone contracts are for cell phones are done verbally? A verbal acceptance, or acceptance by action, by making a mark, by performance all makes a contract. A counter-offer can be made and that, if accepted, will make a binding contract.And that applies to this particular instance how?

You clearly don't understand this whole concept of 'certainty' in contracts, which Courts have over the last 800 years, set great store by.Yet there are contracts that say with certainty that the terms can be changed at any time without notice. Its certainly is written in the contract. And when you sign your name its certain that you agree to it. Certainty of parties, certainty of offer, certainty of consideration, certainty of acceptance and certainty of terms.Including the certainty that the terms can be changed.

If the contract says that the terms can be unilaterally changed at any time by one of the parties... guess what, it's not a contract. Yes it is. It lacks requisite certainty.No it doesn't. It may be an agreement, an understanding, an arrangement between the parties. And it is a contract. But it is not a contract as that term is understood and recognized in law, and it is not legally enforceable. Really that's interesting. Void, not breached, rescinded, repudiated. Not void as the signer agreed to the terms when they signed their name. Void - it was never a contract. Except that it was and still is. It could never be a contract, any more than a Giraffe could be a dog just because you decided to call him Spot.So my cell phone contract isn't a contract. Even though it says contract on it. That's just brilliant.

I'll tell you a secret. I might know a little bit more about the law than the average bear, booboo.Funny I don't see any bears here.

And in any case, at this basic level, we're talking about High School level basic law stuff.

What highs chools offer basic law?

And it is basic. You sign your name and you agree to the terms set forth. Yup pretty basic.

 

[Den Valdron]

So you can't say his understanding is incorrect. If fact it isn't. Thats how the majority of class actions work.

Prove it. It's my understanding that a person who advances a proposition has the burden of proving it. Go right ahead. Show me the statistics.

Whats the going rate for the lawyer 30 - 33%.

On contingency fee cases? Something like that. SHRUG. So what? You're ignoring some details about contingency fee cases. They are no money down, a plaintiff doesn't pay for the lawyer's time and effort. If the case is lost, the lawyer walks away with nothing. Only if the case is won does the lawyer get a cut.

So, you figure what? Lawyers ought to work for free? They ought to provide services out of the goodness of their heart? Excellent. I'll go down to the car dealership and tell them that they should give me a free car too. Then I'll go down to the supermarket and demand free groceries. Or is it just confined to lawyers? And certain lawyers? The ones you like to spit on.

Or do you figure that if poor people can't afford a lawyer, but they believe they've been wronged or injured, then they should just sit there and suffer. Or maybe they should whip out their second amendment firearms and blow the mofos away? Which is it?

How come you think its okay for a phone company to screw millions of people with hidden clauses in tiny fine print in contracts, but its not okay for a lawyer taking on a poor client who has been injured to make a contract that the client is willing to sign? Who is ripping off who, here?

Maybe you think contingency fees are too high? But the truth is, lawyers are in business, they have to make a living, pay their offices, their overhead, they have to make a profit just like everyone else. What's wrong with making a living? What's wrong with paying your offices and employees? What's wrong with making a profit? Again, I'm not getting this distinction you draw between a company that rips off millions, and a lawyer who makes a deal with a client who signs the contract with his eyes open.

But if it is too high, then what's reasonable? I suppose someone who doesn't want to sign at 30% can refuse and go to court himself. Is that a real option? No one can know for certain which cases are good and which are bad, that's what trials are for. Every time a lawyer walks into a trial, he risks coming away with nothing. Contingency fees are high because the lawyer has to absorb all the expenses of the cases that turn out to be duds.

I dunno. I'm not saying I disrespect your opinions. But you might want to reconsider stunning ignorance as a foundation for your views.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

skadistic,

You can't change the terms of the contract without notice. That's elementary contract law. See, e.g., Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America (.pdf) (9th Cir. 2007), at 4-5 ("a party can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract."). Moreover, it's not entirely clear that a court would enforce a contract term that specified that one party assented to any term the other party could choose in the future.

To be completely honest with you, I found contract law pretty surprising. When you actually get down and study it, you find that it's quite different from the commonly-held beliefs of most people.

Cleo

 

[Den Valdron]

And we are talking about contracts here so whats your point exactly?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. You're confusing contracts with some other kind of agreement. Blood oaths maybe.

And that applies to this particular instance how?

You seem to think that there's something magical and everlasting in a signature.

Including the certainty that the terms can be changed.

Nope. You won't find that particular certainty accepted anywhere in any Common Law jurisdiction, including England, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, etc. etc. But hey, , I can be persuaded. Why don't you go out and look it up and prove I'm wrong... LOL.

If the contract says that the terms can be unilaterally changed at any time by one of the parties... guess what, it's not a contract.

Yes it is.

I'm afraid not, booboo.

It lacks requisite certainty.

No it doesn't.

Ah, but it do, it do, it do indeedy do, booboo.

It may be an agreement, an understanding, an arrangement between the parties.

And it is a contract.

Nope.

But it is not a contract as that term is understood and recognized in law, and it is not legally enforceable.

Really that's interesting.

Interesting, and chock full of nutritious vitamins, booboo.

So my cell phone contract isn't a contract. Even though it says contract on it. That's just brilliant.

That 18 foot tall, horned, hoofed, spotted, long-legged, critter in your back yard munching off the high leafs is not a dog either. Even though it says "Fido" on his dog collar.

What highs chools offer basic law?

Most modern high schools, since at least the 60's and 70's, offer late secondary students in grades 11, 12 or 13 (if it goes that far) basic university or college prep or intro programming, to facilitate those who are going to be going on with their education. Thus, you can find Political Science, Economics, Shop, Advanced History, Literature, Physics, Trigonometry and Law. Not every high school offers all of these, most may only offer some. But yeah, you're getting it up at the level of high school law.

 

[Den Valdron]

To be completely honest with you, I found contract law pretty surprising. When you actually get down and study it, you find that it's quite different from the commonly-held beliefs of most people.

Cleo

That's because laymen confuse contracts with all sorts of different kinds of agreements. Gifts, domestic contracts, arrangements, treaties, understandings, blood oaths, promises, etc.

A Contract is a sort of intellectual tool or instrument. It's sort of like an abstract version of a skillsaw or a cordless screwdriver. It is a very specific tool, which is designed to do very specific things in very specific ways.

You don't use a skillsaw to hammer nails, you don't use a cordless screwdriver
to program your computer. The properties of these tools, the things that they can do, the things that they can't are very well defined and obvious.

A contract, in its technical sense as a kind of legal intellectual abstract tool or instrument, is the same way. If people get it confused with other kinds of agreements... well, there was once a man who mistook his wife for a hat. It doesn't make it true.

 

[warpus]

When they signed their name. I know you wont understand that. I'm pretty sure somewhere in there a line about how the contract and its terms can be changed at any time with out prior notice. And when you sign that name on the line you agree to that. Its really simple.

Have you read every line of every contract you've ever signed?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Den Valdron,

Yeah. For example, you learn that the signature doesn't matter unless the agreement falls within the Statute of Frauds. Or that when your co-worker says, "If you drive, I'll buy you lunch," and you say "yes" (or, even without that, if you drive), you've created a contract. It's just an offer and acceptance with consideration. And if what looks like a contract lacks "offer," "acceptance," or "consideration," it's not a contract.

The "contract" is really the rights and duties imposed by the law on particular agreements. It's not the piece of paper, and parts of the piece of paper that don't conform to the legally-imposed rights and duties are nothing more than fluff, ready to be erased by a court.

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

Here we come again to a place where Coase has failed in law and economics. The theory being that it's better to sue than to regulate. As in "Well it's wrong to regulate, and if people are hurt they can just sue instead."

If a company takes an action which harms others, then a lawsuit may well be the only manner in which the harm can be addressed. Yet it is in the interest of the harmer to not cooperate with the harmee. And that is particularly true when the harmer is a large organization with a lot of resources and the harmee is individual people with few resources.

That lack of resources on the part of the victim means that they simply do not have the ability on their own to seek compensation through the courts.

Unless they manage to get a lawyer who will work for a portion of the settlement instead of a fee. That is the only way to balance the power sufficiently so that a lawsuit can be judged on it's merits instead of a certain win for the richer party to the suit.

In other words, to oppose trial lawyers and class action suits is to oppose responsibility. Because without them, criminals and the negligent cannot be held responsible for their action.

 

[Den Valdron]

Interesting but the same people who oppose business regulation tend to be the very same people who foam at the mouth the most over lawyers, contingency agreements, class action suits, etc.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Den Valdron,

That's precisely the point. There's at least a good faith argument that can be made for supporting the "free market" above all things. But "the free market" should support people getting compensated for injuries caused by others. A robust tort system is essential if you're not going to regulate things from on high -- the tort system is an essential part of the market. So you see that people who oppose regulation and tort law are not some kind of high-minded ideologues who think that a free market will solve all ills (bad enough, but at least it's an argument made in good faith), but are really just pro-business.

Cleo

 

[Gogf]

Its nWhat is it?ot a right.

Sorry... I just had to do it .

 

[skadistic]

Have you read every line of every contract you've ever signed?

Since 2000 yes I have.

 

[skadistic]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. You're confusing contracts with some other kind of agreement. Blood oaths maybe.I know what I'm talking about contracts.



You seem to think that there's something magical and everlasting in a signature. You type this but say I don't know what I'm talking about? Does signing the contract mean you agree to all the terms put forth in it of not?



Nope. You won't find that particular certainty accepted anywhere in any Common Law jurisdiction, including England, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, etc. etc. But hey, , I can be persuaded. Why don't you go out and look it up and prove I'm wrong... LOL.Really? So the contracts I sign that have that as term of the contract isn't valid? You'd thing my contract lawyers would know better. But I just take their professional world for it.



I'm afraid not, booboo.Booboo? Awww that's so cute you're trying to be condescending.



Ah, but it do, it do, it do indeedy do, booboo.Awww look more of you condescending crap. That's so cute. Like a little pouty girl.




Nope.Prove it. Taking a page out of you play book.



Interesting, and chock full of nutritious vitamins, booboo.More of your booboo crap. I'm so remiss in the overwhelming majesty of your pathetic condescending bunk.



That 18 foot tall, horned, hoofed, spotted, long-legged, critter in your back yard munching off the high leafs is not a dog either. Even though it says "Fido" on his dog collar.Yup just like my cell phone contract is indeed a contract.



Most modern high schools, since at least the 60's and 70's, offer late secondary students in grades 11, 12 or 13 (if it goes that far) basic university or college prep or intro programming, to facilitate those who are going to be going on with their education. Thus, you can find Political Science, Economics, Shop, Advanced History, Literature, Physics, Trigonometry and Law. Not every high school offers all of these, most may only offer some. But yeah, you're getting it up at the level of high school law.

Most modern high schools? Prove it. Since you seem to be an expert in the field. One that's not even sure how far high school goes.........

 

[skadistic]

Sorry... I just had to do it .

Its a legal recourse. You do not have a right to sue or to sue in a class action. If it was a right courts wouldn't be able to throw them out.

 

[Gogf]

Its a legal recourse. You do not have a right to sue or to sue in a class action. If it was a rigWell, as far as I know, actually taking the case to court is a right. If one of the lawyers here wants to correct me, though, I'll readily admit that I'm wrong.ht courts wouldn't be able to throw them out.

Have a nice day .

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Gogf,

Well, as one of my professors used to say, "You can always sue."

There's not right to proceed as a class action, but there's a general right to due process, and people couldn't be barred from the courts entirely. Arbitration clauses in contracts that one accepts are enforceable, however. But on a larger scale, if the class action were eliminated we'd have to re-work huge sections of our legal system to deal with the increased caseload in mass tort and civil rights cases, and to address the wrongs for which Congress has chosen the remedy of the private suit (e.g., anti-trust actions with small individual but large aggregate damages). One might be able to make an argument that there is a denial of due process if the courts were to become so clogged as to push civil suits beyond their corresponding statutes of limitations. Despite the straw-class-actions trotted out by defenders of business, actual class actions really are an important part of the American legal system.

Cleo

 

[Den Valdron]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. You're confusing contracts with some other kind of agreement. Blood oaths maybe.

I know what I'm talking about contracts.

Then you don't know much about contracts.

Nope. You won't find that particular certainty accepted anywhere in any Common Law jurisdiction, including England, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, etc. etc. But hey, , I can be persuaded. Why don't you go out and look it up and prove I'm wrong... LOL.

Really. So the contracts I sign that have that as term of the contract isn't valid? You'd thing my contract lawyers would know better. But I just take their professional world for it.

You should get better lawyers.

I'm afraid not, booboo.

Booboo? Awww that's so cute you're trying to be condescending.

Just friendly. I'm working off that 'smarter than the average bear' riff, which you will recall was one of Yogi Bear's favourite sayings. His sidekick was a little bear named booboo.

It's to show there's no hard feelings and I'm not taking this discussion all that seriously, booboo.

Ah, but it do, it do, it do indeedy do, booboo.

Awww look more of you condescending crap. That's so cute. Like a little pouty girl.

Actually, I'm trying to type with a 'yogi bear' voice, as you can see from the peculiar sentence structure. My way of having little fun. Not condescending. Just a bit of harmless light heartedness. If you feel condescended, that's just your insecurity, booboo.

Nope.

Prove it. Taking a page out of you play book.

Don't just settle for a page, booboo! Take a whole book. Read a book. Look it up. Any simple text on the law of contract. Or go read Cleo's reference.

Interesting, and chock full of nutritious vitamins, booboo.

More of your booboo crap. I'm so remiss in the overwhelming majesty of your pathetic condescending bunk.

I think my little friend is a little sensitive. You should lighten up, booboo.

That 18 foot tall, horned, hoofed, spotted, long-legged, critter in your back yard munching off the high leafs is not a dog either. Even though it says "Fido" on his dog collar.

Yup just like my cell phone contract is indeed a contract.

Is booboo getting it? Hope springs eternal.

Most modern high schools? Prove it. Since you seem to be an expert in the field. One that's not even sure how far high school goes.........

In Quebec, high school goes up to grade 13 I believe. In most Canadian provinces and American states, high school does up to grade 12. I suppose that it's possible that in some really beknighted American states high school only goes up to grade 10, who knows.

As for law as a part of High School curriculums, there's this link:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED153932

Have a nice day, booboo