Hacker News Reader

Comment by ngold | Hacker News Reader

If the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.

View on HN

Your example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit.

The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.

> The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS.

Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn't hold your breath, sadly.

(Although I would like to hear Gorsuch claim that since the constitution didn't say anything about forced arbitration, it's out of the purview of SCOTUS. If only to hear him slapped down by RBG again.)

They looked at a related issue not too long ago.

https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/12/supreme-court-holds...

In your view is it ever permissible(enforceable) to forfeit the right to sue as part of a contract? Or are there just certain kinds of contracts or circumstances for which the right to sue is inalienable?

It's not in Europe, so I see zero reason why it should be permissible here.

They have examined it and found it's fine.

And if the banks had your money, even though you never gave it to them.

> even though you never gave it to them

You can argue you were coerced into giving it to them. But at the end of the day, you signed bank and credit card and employment agreements that let your information be transmitted.

Because the alternative would be opting out of employment?

(How many places wouldn't un-hire you as soon as you insist they can't pay your bank account because you don't have one?)

Most employers will pay you with a check, which doesn't require a bank account to be cashed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com