5 ms·
The counterargument is that if you don't have binding arbitration, you can be constantly worried that the other party will drive you bankrupt with frivolous leg
by BeetleB 6d ago
The counterargument is that if you don't have binding arbitration, you can be constantly worried that the other party will drive you bankrupt with frivolous legal proceedings, and that fear discourages collaboration. A binding arbitration puts that fear at ease.
- LocalH 6d agoBanning binding arbitration means that class actions can happen.
- BeetleB 6d agoThat's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Class action is, almost by definition, a case where there is unequal power.
- AngryData 5d agoTo me that is a flaw in the justice system that needs to be resolved by legislation and within the justice system, not something that should have some bs extralegal work around.