There is no rhyme, reason or logic as different judges are on different reading levels ascertaining the letters of the law. Some judges still read at the third grade level.
All this tells me is that the FAA needs to be removed from law, or at the very least, only make the manufacture binding to the arbitration. And make binding arbitration entirely optional for the consumer. It needs to be a separate agreement that the consumer is not required to agree to in order to buy something or buy or use a service.
I think it was Arthur C Clark who wrote a story where a guy invents a machine that you could feed a legal document into it and it would give you a normal one. Everyone was happy, until the lawyers found that they could run it into reverse and feed it a normal document and it would give out legalize. Then they went further. Feed a document of legalize backwards and it would legalize it more. This was a very long time ago and it has gotten worse.
In Michigan last year there were 13 lawyers serving in the state's two houses. The legislature is made up of 148 people (house/senate). 13/148 = .088. That's under 10%. (I'm using Michigan because 1) the lemon law I am discussing is a Michigan law and 2) the figures for Michigan are the easiest for me to locate.) Not sure what state you are in but maybe your state is different.
That lugnut case just really blows me away. Seriously, they never called in experts from, I don't know, NASCAR, NHRA, Jay Leno, or anyone who has ever changed a tire? 😂😂 BTW, the tapper goes IN! Towards the wheel 🛞!
Mandatory binding arbitration should be made illegal. Both parties should willingly want to go to arbitration as an option for it to be a binding requirement. These one sided contracts that forcing binding arbitration are an affront to justice.
Technically, you generally have the choice to enter a binding arbitration contract or not. The issue is whether you should or should not be able to waive your own legal rights because it can be taken advantage of by large companies, especially in a limited supply market.
The irony of most legislators being lawyers is that they have never, and will never explain the intent of the laws they pass. I firmly believe that they couch their legislation in arcane language for the sole purpose of keeping lawyers and judges employed in trying to suss out what they really meant to say.
I think we really need some way to slap the appeals courts when they do boneheaded things like this. Yes, it could be appealed again to a yet higher court, but the vast majority of people could never afford that. Nor should they be required to pay extra to get the courts to follow the law. But this sad state of affairs will undoubtedly continue unless and until there is a way to hold those justices responsible for their decisions that do not follow actual law. Maybe they should be required to resit for an exam or two on the laws for a first offense...with potential removal from the bench if the situation continues unabated.
I worked "around" or with arbitration awards for 30 years on the railroad. Thats also is an older concept going back to the Railway Labor Act. When we go into an arbitration event our organizations (unions) and the carriers (railroad employers) can request a list of referees where each side gets to 'strike' off referees they don't like until the last name is left and that is your referee, for that case. kinda like jury selection in court. I never made it to that level in the industry, but I read hundreds of awards written by referees and maybe 1 or 2 % of them I walked away from wholeheartedly disagreeing with, so I always had a high level of respect for the process as designed. Can consumers do the same thing and get a list of referees to choose from or are the cases assigned , and how does that all work?
The key to the success you've seen is the union. They've been picking arbitrators for as long as the carrier has. In the consumer case, this is the consumer's first go round. Arbitrators in consumer situations are tilted towards the company more than arbitrators in union situations..
@@mikerickson01 around 2015 I got double charged for a smart phone I ordered from my cell carrier. Long story short the one they sent me disappeared in tracking in another state, so they "rushed" me out a replacement order the "next day". The phone that had been missing for a week showed up and I canceled the replacement, which never showed to ship at all, and a month later I still have both charged to me around $800 each. They disagreed with me for over a month saying I have 2 phones , even know they can't even produce a tracking number on the second order or a serial number or any evidence that a second phone order ever existed other then a charge to me and that was enough for them to say I was the one with 2 phones. So I started pressing the arbitration clause in the consumer agreement, they kept getting more and more hostile about it saying things like "What do you expect to get from arbitration?" and clearly everyone I talked to had zero clue what arbitration was, I just kept saying "I don't know, I am not going to be the referee, we will find out what I get from arbitration" after a week or so I got a hold of someone who either emailed me the arbitration application or sent me a link to it I forget, I think it was a $5 charge to if I had started it. However the next day before I even started to fill out the application they gave me a full refund. It seemed like they realized I was serious about going to a referee and either further investigated and found out I was correct or threw their hands up at the thought of even having to deal with representing themselves. Will never know.
You agree to an arbiter paid for by the auto manufacturer that turns around and says it’s not a lemon but fits the criteria for a lemon legally than yea it should not be binding if the court finds the arbiter is rubbing stamping the check signer and not coming to a conclusion that is legally acceptable. As for the employee discount I could see a more legitimate claim of they are being compensated for waving their rights with the discount. So the agreement is special compensation for a special situation but if it’s a lemon it’s a lemon and cars make crappy lemonade.
I vote Steve Lehto for Supreme Court. Get Steve Lehto, The Civil Right Attorney, The legal eagle, the DUI Guy and the Law Stache (just because of the stache) and they would be the dream team!
Steve has repeated said he didn't want to be a Judge But that's the exact person you want to be a judge, someone who doesn't want the power but is responsible enough to read the intent of the law and challenge when there is something wrong with a law If tomorrow, Steve got assigned to the Supreme Court judge for a year, I genuinely believe we would have way better consumer rights, qualified immunity, and civil asset forfeiture decisions that the past 60-70 years combined
I think it's funny un certain situations. Like valve which operates the gaming website steam taking out arbitration in their TOS after receiving tens of thousands of arbitration claims. Well actually pretty sure it's hundreds of thousands. Most people focus on one group of arbitration claims but there are like a dozen or so groups last i checked. Most have one or two similiar claims, some have added extra claims. And i feel like valve removing arbitration is a sign that they do not believe it is going well.
You should submit a news article about it to Steve, I suggest watching his "how to send an email" video first Then use an eye-catching title like "largest online gaming store removes arbitration requirement after it backfires"
Never agree to an arbitration clause. Fundamentally it is waiving your rights and personal protections which by definition is idiotic. Also, generally speaking the arbitration is conducted by a third party that is being paid by the initiator of the clause which by definition is a conflict of interest.
Since having a law degree is not a requirement to be a legislator it is dumb to expect that they would know the law and draft new laws that do not contradict with existing law. The very notion is hilarious if it wasn’t so stupid.
You would have thought that the dealers or manufacturers would have required the waiver if there was any discount off of MSRP, since the appeals court seemed to have green lighted it. Perhaps, dealers don't care since it is the manufacturers that are on the hook for lemon law and warranties.
Why would anyone agree to arbitration that was binding on them, but not on the other party? It is like going to a casino that agrees the bet is binding if the chump, ah, customer loses, but if they win the casino can decide to accept or reject that bet.
Why can we be force to wave our 7th amendment rights in a one way contract we have no say on it's drafting? Can we wave are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 13th amendment? The way I think it should be, is after the dispute raises, then you can agree to arbitration. But it shouldn't be forced on you for business to customer type of business. Cell phones, internet. Because every business can say, to do business with us, you have to wave your 7th amendment rights. Then what is the point of a having constitutional amendments, if in order to participate in common daily activities and services, you have to give them up? What if your Cell, internet company, HOA made you wave your 1st and 2nd, or right to vote to use their services (or live in your home)? What if your employer made your wave your 13rd amendment? Could they do that? If you can wave your 7th amendment right, why not your other rights? (A real question!) Final note: There is a differences between agreeing to Arbitration after the dispute arises. Or for two parties that have equal say in the terms of services. But are you really agreeing to arbitration when it's a everyday service that is needed by society? You need to buy food, so you have to wave your constitutional rights. Any thoughts? (I'm not a lawyer.)
They did try that with the 13th the Supreme Court said it was illegal they also tried it with voting again illegal yet they try upholding 1st amendment agreements to not talk about the details for money which is upheld by requiring the money to be repaid so not a complete violation. If this logic could be used companies could require you to give up gun rights to buy a car and if you violate it they could take it back without compensation. Our government is not supposed to accept contracts that are unconstitutional which is why racist covenants like no black people may purchase this house so anything that prevents a jury trial shouldn't be allowed to be considered by a court.
Sometimes I feel like the Michigan Supreme Court has a lug not loose. Just to pick an analogy out of the air …
I vote for Mr. Lehto to be a judicial training officer of All levels with a salary of His choosing!
I'm starting to wonder if judges should take regular subject and cognitive exams, like pilots getting tested on equipment and physical health.
You don't have to be the sharpest tool in the box to be a judge.
Looks like the majority of the Michigan State Supreme Court justices need an out-of-warranty repair...
this is very good.
this should be on the main channel.
Thanks for explaining Steve. It sure is confusing. But now I get it.
🤔 wow fantastic video, the right amount of in-depth information without getting really into the weeds, thanks 😄👍
Thank you. I appreciate the education.
There is no rhyme, reason or logic as different judges are on different reading levels ascertaining the letters of the law. Some judges still read at the third grade level.
And those judges are the more learned of the bunch.
All this tells me is that the FAA needs to be removed from law, or at the very least, only make the manufacture binding to the arbitration. And make binding arbitration entirely optional for the consumer. It needs to be a separate agreement that the consumer is not required to agree to in order to buy something or buy or use a service.
I love this stuff. Please do more deep dives like this.😊
I think it was Arthur C Clark who wrote a story where a guy invents a machine that you could feed a legal document into it and it would give you a normal one. Everyone was happy, until the lawyers found that they could run it into reverse and feed it a normal document and it would give out legalize. Then they went further. Feed a document of legalize backwards and it would legalize it more. This was a very long time ago and it has gotten worse.
Ben in the coffee mug behind the Titanic.
Great to have another chance to see your videos 🎉
The VAST MAJORITY of legislators ARE LAWYERS!
In Michigan last year there were 13 lawyers serving in the state's two houses. The legislature is made up of 148 people (house/senate). 13/148 = .088. That's under 10%. (I'm using Michigan because 1) the lemon law I am discussing is a Michigan law and 2) the figures for Michigan are the easiest for me to locate.) Not sure what state you are in but maybe your state is different.
Thank you for an interesting class session, professor!
That lugnut case just really blows me away. Seriously, they never called in experts from, I don't know, NASCAR, NHRA, Jay Leno, or anyone who has ever changed a tire? 😂😂
BTW, the tapper goes IN! Towards the wheel 🛞!
Mandatory binding arbitration should be made illegal. Both parties should willingly want to go to arbitration as an option for it to be a binding requirement. These one sided contracts that forcing binding arbitration are an affront to justice.
Federal arbitration act
Technically, you generally have the choice to enter a binding arbitration contract or not. The issue is whether you should or should not be able to waive your own legal rights because it can be taken advantage of by large companies, especially in a limited supply market.
The irony of most legislators being lawyers is that they have never, and will never explain the intent of the laws they pass. I firmly believe that they couch their legislation in arcane language for the sole purpose of keeping lawyers and judges employed in trying to suss out what they really meant to say.
I'm a firm believer that lawyers should be barred from elected office as a conflict of interest. Lawyers making laws. What could POSSIBLY go wrong??
I think we really need some way to slap the appeals courts when they do boneheaded things like this. Yes, it could be appealed again to a yet higher court, but the vast majority of people could never afford that. Nor should they be required to pay extra to get the courts to follow the law. But this sad state of affairs will undoubtedly continue unless and until there is a way to hold those justices responsible for their decisions that do not follow actual law. Maybe they should be required to resit for an exam or two on the laws for a first offense...with potential removal from the bench if the situation continues unabated.
Ben in the cup behind the swords
Steve's attitude toward the Court of Appeals gives us a new meaning of "Contempt of Court."
There are a lot of contemptible courts. It’s good to maintain that option.
I worked "around" or with arbitration awards for 30 years on the railroad. Thats also is an older concept going back to the Railway Labor Act. When we go into an arbitration event our organizations (unions) and the carriers (railroad employers) can request a list of referees where each side gets to 'strike' off referees they don't like until the last name is left and that is your referee, for that case. kinda like jury selection in court. I never made it to that level in the industry, but I read hundreds of awards written by referees and maybe 1 or 2 % of them I walked away from wholeheartedly disagreeing with, so I always had a high level of respect for the process as designed. Can consumers do the same thing and get a list of referees to choose from or are the cases assigned , and how does that all work?
The key to the success you've seen is the union. They've been picking arbitrators for as long as the carrier has. In the consumer case, this is the consumer's first go round. Arbitrators in consumer situations are tilted towards the company more than arbitrators in union situations..
@@mikerickson01 around 2015 I got double charged for a smart phone I ordered from my cell carrier. Long story short the one they sent me disappeared in tracking in another state, so they "rushed" me out a replacement order the "next day". The phone that had been missing for a week showed up and I canceled the replacement, which never showed to ship at all, and a month later I still have both charged to me around $800 each. They disagreed with me for over a month saying I have 2 phones , even know they can't even produce a tracking number on the second order or a serial number or any evidence that a second phone order ever existed other then a charge to me and that was enough for them to say I was the one with 2 phones. So I started pressing the arbitration clause in the consumer agreement, they kept getting more and more hostile about it saying things like "What do you expect to get from arbitration?" and clearly everyone I talked to had zero clue what arbitration was, I just kept saying "I don't know, I am not going to be the referee, we will find out what I get from arbitration" after a week or so I got a hold of someone who either emailed me the arbitration application or sent me a link to it I forget, I think it was a $5 charge to if I had started it. However the next day before I even started to fill out the application they gave me a full refund. It seemed like they realized I was serious about going to a referee and either further investigated and found out I was correct or threw their hands up at the thought of even having to deal with representing themselves. Will never know.
Thank you Steve! You have the gift of gab.
They're playing a Catch 22 game.
if it happen to them, they would change it
Last -- Bye Steve!
You agree to an arbiter paid for by the auto manufacturer that turns around and says it’s not a lemon but fits the criteria for a lemon legally than yea it should not be binding if the court finds the arbiter is rubbing stamping the check signer and not coming to a conclusion that is legally acceptable. As for the employee discount I could see a more legitimate claim of they are being compensated for waving their rights with the discount. So the agreement is special compensation for a special situation but if it’s a lemon it’s a lemon and cars make crappy lemonade.
I vote Steve Lehto for Supreme Court. Get Steve Lehto, The Civil Right Attorney, The legal eagle, the DUI Guy and the Law Stache (just because of the stache) and they would be the dream team!
Steve has repeated said he didn't want to be a Judge
But that's the exact person you want to be a judge, someone who doesn't want the power but is responsible enough to read the intent of the law and challenge when there is something wrong with a law
If tomorrow, Steve got assigned to the Supreme Court judge for a year, I genuinely believe we would have way better consumer rights, qualified immunity, and civil asset forfeiture decisions that the past 60-70 years combined
I think it's funny un certain situations. Like valve which operates the gaming website steam taking out arbitration in their TOS after receiving tens of thousands of arbitration claims. Well actually pretty sure it's hundreds of thousands. Most people focus on one group of arbitration claims but there are like a dozen or so groups last i checked. Most have one or two similiar claims, some have added extra claims. And i feel like valve removing arbitration is a sign that they do not believe it is going well.
You should submit a news article about it to Steve, I suggest watching his "how to send an email" video first
Then use an eye-catching title like "largest online gaming store removes arbitration requirement after it backfires"
I get employee discount three ford ram chevy never sign a wavier then of course never had a problem
Never agree to an arbitration clause. Fundamentally it is waiving your rights and personal protections which by definition is idiotic. Also, generally speaking the arbitration is conducted by a third party that is being paid by the initiator of the clause which by definition is a conflict of interest.
Since having a law degree is not a requirement to be a legislator it is dumb to expect that they would know the law and draft new laws that do not contradict with existing law. The very notion is hilarious if it wasn’t so stupid.
The arbitration system is completely different than it was 100 years ago.
You would have thought that the dealers or manufacturers would have required the waiver if there was any discount off of MSRP, since the appeals court seemed to have green lighted it. Perhaps, dealers don't care since it is the manufacturers that are on the hook for lemon law and warranties.
Which is worse, the Michigan supreme court or the U.S. supreme court? It looks like a race to the bottom rung of the ladder of common sense.
Both are dominated by rightwing conservatives which explains why both suck.
Don't new laws or provisions of new laws supersede older laws?
Why would anyone agree to arbitration that was binding on them, but not on the other party? It is like going to a casino that agrees the bet is binding if the chump, ah, customer loses, but if they win the casino can decide to accept or reject that bet.
Where's SISU? I was just gonna ask about it because of the movie.
On rotation, there are too many plates to put them all up at the one time.
Why I do not respect the law: example alpha
Why can we be force to wave our 7th amendment rights in a one way contract we have no say on it's drafting? Can we wave are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 13th amendment? The way I think it should be, is after the dispute raises, then you can agree to arbitration. But it shouldn't be forced on you for business to customer type of business. Cell phones, internet.
Because every business can say, to do business with us, you have to wave your 7th amendment rights. Then what is the point of a having constitutional amendments, if in order to participate in common daily activities and services, you have to give them up? What if your Cell, internet company, HOA made you wave your 1st and 2nd, or right to vote to use their services (or live in your home)?
What if your employer made your wave your 13rd amendment? Could they do that? If you can wave your 7th amendment right, why not your other rights? (A real question!)
Final note: There is a differences between agreeing to Arbitration after the dispute arises. Or for two parties that have equal say in the terms of services. But are you really agreeing to arbitration when it's a everyday service that is needed by society? You need to buy food, so you have to wave your constitutional rights.
Any thoughts? (I'm not a lawyer.)
They did try that with the 13th the Supreme Court said it was illegal they also tried it with voting again illegal yet they try upholding 1st amendment agreements to not talk about the details for money which is upheld by requiring the money to be repaid so not a complete violation. If this logic could be used companies could require you to give up gun rights to buy a car and if you violate it they could take it back without compensation. Our government is not supposed to accept contracts that are unconstitutional which is why racist covenants like no black people may purchase this house so anything that prevents a jury trial shouldn't be allowed to be considered by a court.
First -- LOL -- Hey Steve!