The Corporate Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion set a dangerous precedent, and is forcing everyday Americans out of the courthouse. AFJ takes a look at some of the cases impacted by the decision.
Case: Wolf v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.
Matthew Wolf is a captain in the Army Reserve JAG Corp who was deployed oversees in late 2007. A year earlier, Captain Wolf leased a new car through Nissan on a 39 month lease, and paid about $600 in advance costs. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides that when called to active duty, reservists and National Guard members are entitled to terminate automotive leases and recover a portion of upfront costs paid. Nissan, however, refused to refund any portion of Wolf’s payments. Wolf filed a class action on behalf of himself and all other servicemembers whose rights Nissan would not honor. However, Nissan’s lease agreement contained an arbitration clause with a class action waiver. The district court held that, in light of Concepción, the FAA and its “policies favoring and promoting arbitration” required solitary arbitration, even if it hindered the policy goals behind the SCRA.
Click here for more on the aftermath of the Court's AT&T decision.
3 comments:
Gotta love "we-don't-legislate-from-the-bench" Repugnican supreme court judges, then legislating from the bench.
I found 3 such charges on my Verizon bill this month. This is the 2nd time I have found these phony charges on my bill.
Both times I called Verizon and they removed them with no problems at all. All it took was a simple phone call, they were very nice on the phone, they did not not give me a hard time and just resolved the problem. If I can get this done
anyone can. The key look at your bill every month.
Moonbeam - The problem is that every individual getting these charges has to first notice them and then call Verizon to get them off. These Supreme Court rulings encourage Verizon and other companies to continue slipping in these charges.
Imagine a kid in the neighborhood was going around sneaking $10 out of people's purses and wallets. If he got $10 from you... you caught him... and he said he was sorry and gave the $10 back. Would you be satisfied with that, knowing he'll continue to sneak $10 from other people's purses and wallets? If you talked to the parents and they said "You got your money back, didn't you?" and they said they wouldn't punish or discourage him would you be satisfied with that either?
This situation isn't much different except you're dealing with a much bigger kid with access to many more wallets.
Post a Comment