There are no benefits to you.

You are sacrificing your legal rights.

This matter is called "Binding Mandatory Arbitration" or some such, and
it has been the source of controversy for several years now.

Consumer groups advice against it.

The arbitrators who oversee any hearings under this agreement are
usually handpicked by the companies themselves.

This is a way business evades American legal protections.

But with certain institutions, like banks and credit card companies,
you have no choice if you want the account.

Other types of businesses, like car dealers, will also try to get you
to sign these agreements, but that would be unwise.

sarpesius


Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
- quote -

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:54:26 -0500, BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net wrote:

- quote -

That is clearly NOT the case in this instance. Wording of the notice is
very clear in that regard.


- quote -

The fact that "almost all" do that doesn't really help me in making a
decision about this specific case.

Why would you not worry about it, when it is optional?

What are the benefits to me of accepting this required arbitration, given
that the use of the card is unrestricted should I choose to reject the
arbitration clause?
--ron

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> writes:
- quote -

rejecting a change in one's CC agreement typically takes the
form of not using the card anymore and paying off whatever
outstanding balance one has, if any. ie. cancelling the card.

I wouldn't worry too much about that CC arbitration clause.
AFAIK, almost all the card issuers require that now and it's
no big deal. AFAIK, so, too, do almost all the brokerages
with respect to one's brokerage accounts.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

if you reject it and find yourself in a dispute later, they will likely
agree to arbitration then if you want. So why commit now?

"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> wrote in message
news:8od5k2tmsb85akhfmn1ocd2dnhqkg7ssvt[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

One of my credit card companies -- USAA -- just sent me a notice proposing
a requirement for arbitration of disputes between us. I think (hard to
understand all the legalese) that this applies to any dispute between me
and them or their agents. It would exclude the possibility of a judge or
jury trial, discovery, class action participation and similar methods of
conflict resolution.

Either they or I could choose to use Small Claims court, provided the
amount is and remains within the jurisdiction of that court.

I have the option of rejecting this arbitration clause. Otherwise it will
go into effect automatically on Jan 1, 2007.

I've never had any disputes with the company, and I'm not certain where my
best interests lie.

Opinions?

Thanks.
--ron