<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Business Week on arbitration clauses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=business-week-on-arbitration-clauses</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: E-Bell</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8688</link>
		<dc:creator>E-Bell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8688</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;ras&lt;/b&gt;:

Federal courts are often required to follow the substantive law of the state in which the suit originated.

It&#039;s not a matter of the 9th Circuit being a &quot;higher&quot; court than the California Supreme Court.  It&#039;s more of a matter of the federal court following the law of the jurisdiction where the harm occurred.

As to your second question, I&#039;m not quite sure what you&#039;re getting at.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>ras</b>:</p>
<p>Federal courts are often required to follow the substantive law of the state in which the suit originated.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a matter of the 9th Circuit being a &#8220;higher&#8221; court than the California Supreme Court.  It&#8217;s more of a matter of the federal court following the law of the jurisdiction where the harm occurred.</p>
<p>As to your second question, I&#8217;m not quite sure what you&#8217;re getting at.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ras</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8687</link>
		<dc:creator>ras</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8687</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m back w/another layman&#039;s dumb q. Here it is: how can the 9th circuit be &quot;bound&quot; by California Supreme Court precedent? Isn&#039;t the 9th a higher court?

2nd q: what if the contracts instead specified that the plaintiff&#039;s lawyer must be paid hourly at a rate equal to the average hourly rate of lawyers in the US? But not a percentage of the recovery, of course.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m back w/another layman&#8217;s dumb q. Here it is: how can the 9th circuit be &#8220;bound&#8221; by California Supreme Court precedent? Isn&#8217;t the 9th a higher court?</p>
<p>2nd q: what if the contracts instead specified that the plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer must be paid hourly at a rate equal to the average hourly rate of lawyers in the US? But not a percentage of the recovery, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Coleman</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8686</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Coleman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8686</guid>
		<description>How did your last negotiation over a cell phone contract go, Ted?  Okay, a facetious question; I infer that you don&#039;t accept the concept of contracts of adhesion.  But do you take the position that there are no policies that a state may consider to be of sufficient importance that they may not be waived &lt;i&gt;ex ante&lt;/i&gt; in any contracting context, much less a consumer context?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How did your last negotiation over a cell phone contract go, Ted?  Okay, a facetious question; I infer that you don&#8217;t accept the concept of contracts of adhesion.  But do you take the position that there are no policies that a state may consider to be of sufficient importance that they may not be waived <i>ex ante</i> in any contracting context, much less a consumer context?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.391 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-27 08:05:38 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
