Hacker News Reader

Comment by will_brown | Hacker News Reader

Very HN of you to replace force in the title with “enforce”.

Here it is in a sentence:

By enforcing the terms of the agreement, Uber forced binding arbitration on the contractor.

If the contractor Filed a Complaint before a court in breach of the arbitration provision of the contract, Uber could have waived its contractual right to arbitration and allowed the case to proceed, but instead they forced the contractor into arbitration by enforcing the agreement. There is an obvious reason Uber elects to put the arbitration provision in its agreements and there is a reason they didn’t waive that provision when push cane to shove...it benefits Uber.

View on HN

The point I was trying to make that the court/law is the enforcer here, not Uber. I think the headline is misleading in this respect.

Your point that a party to a contract could waive their contractual rights is true but I would also argue that you are also choosing words to frame the narrative when you say the Uber "forced the contractor" rather than saying that Uber exercised its contractual rights to resolve the dispute via arbitration. In fact isn't the contractor who is trying to "force" Uber to give up its contractual rights by claiming that the contractual terms aren't valid? [edit: corrected are to aren't]

There is a larger discussion about the value/fairness of arbitration as a mechanism but as I understand it, it is established law that arbitration clauses are legal and I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has "forced" someone to enter into the driver's contract with Uber.

The law doesn't force them into arbitration, Uber's contract does. The law says Uber can force arbitration.

I think the idea is that "force" sounds like Uber is doing it without a prior arbitration agreement. "Enforce" sounds like Uber is doing it after an agreement with drivers. The latter is what is actually happening.

It's a small difference but it matters. The power difference is a separate issue between employers and employees is a separate (important) issue, though.

The arbitration agreement is a "forced arbitration" agreement. It's a small difference but it matters. The law enforced the validity of the contract, the contract forces the arbitration outside of a court of law.

Some arbitration agreements make arbitration mandatory by default, according to their wording; others simply give either side the right to choose arbitration.

The de facto effect is the same except in the rare case where a court sees the wording of the first kind of contract and dismisses the case on its own initiative, since otherwise the arbitration clause would only be enforced on the motion of a party, without which the right would be waived.

But it's not formalistically wrong to use the verb "force" to describe "exercising a contractual election" as opposed to merely "not waiving a default provision of the contract."

But there is nothing special about Uber, or the arbitration clause, or the contract in this regard. So why is the headline written as it is and why are you insisting on this way of framing the argument. You are choosing to characterize the normal enforcement of contract law as something extraordinary and by the choice of words framing this as something that is unfair. At least that is how I interpret your wording and how I also interpreted the headline.

The fact that this particular contract involves Uber and drivers and an arbitration clause is irrelevant to the larger idea that contracts are indeed enforceable. That shouldn't really be news.

It involves uber because it involved a court case with uber. Ask the mods to update the headline to remove the other party from the court decision if it upsets you that Uber is named. "Contracts are enforceable" is a meaningless headline, and you know there's more to the story there. It's a case involving a forced arbitration clause. Hence, the word force. You may be interpreting things incorrectly. Consider that possibility.

I don’t think it is misleading at all to say Uber is “forcing” drivers into arbitration. As the employer, they hold all the power in the relationship. Do you really think an Uber driver could make a $10B+ company do anything?

Apple can FORCE iPhone users to hand over HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS under THREAT OF VIOLENCE.

(That is: you have to pay money for an iPhone, and if you take it without paying the police may come after you.)

I personally think arbitration clauses in situations where the contract is essentially non-negotiable (company/user, company/worker) are basically a way for corporations to opt out of the civil court system, and one can make the case that they should therefore not be allowed (though this is a question for the legislature more than the courts).

In any case, you are absolutely right about the headline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com