Comments for Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:00:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 Comment on How Langewiesche got that Vanity Fair story by Langewiesche responds to Garvin - Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/william-langewiesche-vanity-fair-chevronecuador/comment-page-1/#comment-303579 Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:00:52 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48007#comment-303579 […] p.r. agent Karen Hinton, William Langewiesche has now responded in our comments section (as well as elsewhere) to Glenn Garvin’s critical Miami Herald column […]

]]>
Comment on U.S. Department of Justice promotes forfeiture overseas by Hugo S. Cunningham http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/u-s-department-justice-promotes-forfeiture-overseas/comment-page-1/#comment-303578 Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:07:41 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48275#comment-303578 I do not take Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as gospel: the economic collapse she described could take place just as easily under a corrupt anti-Communist regime (eg. Yel’tsin’s Russia).

Nevertheless, this thread about internationalizing “forfeiture” lawlessness reminded me of a major episode in Atlas Shrugged, where corrupt US politicians connive with corrupt Latin American politicians to seize D’Anconia Copper. (The eponymous owner, a typical Randian superhero, saw it coming and had a counterstroke ready.)

]]>
Comment on U.S. Department of Justice promotes forfeiture overseas by ras http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/u-s-department-justice-promotes-forfeiture-overseas/comment-page-1/#comment-303574 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:05:21 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48275#comment-303574 This will serve to drive indivs and corps to set up shop in those countries that cooperate the least w/the US.

]]>
Comment on “Did California just make it illegal for businesses to stop dealing with customers who insult them?” by David Schwartz http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/california-just-make-illegal-businesses-stop-dealing-customers-insult/comment-page-1/#comment-303572 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:01:19 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48259#comment-303572 C: Your interpretation doesn’t make any sense.

1 says: “A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.”

So the statements it protects are those “regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services”. It protects them by preventing a contract from waiving the right to make them.

Then 2 says: “It shall be unlawful to threaten or to seek to enforce a provision made unlawful under this section, or to otherwise penalize a consumer for making any statement protected under this section.”

So that means a company can’t penalize a consumer for making any statement protected under section 1. The statements protected under 1 are, again, those “regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services”.

So combined, section 1 protects statements “regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services” by prohibiting contracts from waiving the right to make them and section 2 additionally protects those same statements by prohibiting companies from penalizing consumers who make them.

]]>
Comment on “Justice Department Urges Banks to Implicate Employees” by rxc http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/justice-department-urges-banks-implicate-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-303560 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:58:07 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48278#comment-303560 I wonder when we start to consider re-naming the “Justice” Department to the Ministry of State Security…

]]>
Comment on “Law firm mistakenly identifies dead smokers as alive in 588 suits” by captnhal http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/law-firm-mistakenly-identifies-dead-smokers-alive-588-suits/comment-page-1/#comment-303540 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:31:00 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48212#comment-303540 To answer andy’s question: the Grateful Dead!

]]>
Comment on “Did California just make it illegal for businesses to stop dealing with customers who insult them?” by C http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/california-just-make-illegal-businesses-stop-dealing-customers-insult/comment-page-1/#comment-303517 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 05:05:46 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48259#comment-303517 Gitarcarver, I have no problem with it. Especially when the “contract” is simply non-negotiable terms which may or may not be read, and when the terms are clearly against the public interest. There is literally no situation where it is appropriate for a company to prohibit all of its customers from talking negatively about the company or its product.

I am sure that every company in the world would love to exempt themselves from all liability and prohibit all negative comments. If given the chance, they would. So we don’t give them the chance.

If the contract is to provide a widget that does a specific thing in good working order and in a certain time, and the company does not provide said widget, why is the rest of the contract in effect if the company does not live up to the contract in the first place?

But what if they DO provide the widget but it’s somehow low quality (but not so much that it’s an actual contract breach?) Why should the consumer have to shut up about that?

So once again, what does this bill add to the law?

The bill has several purposes. Clarity for the consumer, who now knows for a fact that the provision is unenforceable so their speech is not stifled by the prospect of a large fine. Clarity for the businesses who were using this, who now know the clause is definitely unenforceable instead of just probably unenforceable. Additional punishment for a business who tries to continue to put such a clause in their contracts (the punishment is specified as being nonexclusive; you can sue for violation of this AND whatever else you could otherwise sue for.) And getting RID of these horrible clauses (companies can be sued for merely having them, even if they don’t actually enforce them.)

Richard: Yeah, now that I think about it, that could be a valid reading. It’s somewhat ambiguous if “protected under this section” refers to “any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services” or “statements made violating a contract provision purporting to waive the consumer’s right to make any such statement.” I really doubt the courts would interpret it the first way (if it’s ambiguous, they should go with the obvious legislative intent) but I guess it’s not impossible.

]]>
Comment on “Did California just make it illegal for businesses to stop dealing with customers who insult them?” by Stewart Peterson http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/california-just-make-illegal-businesses-stop-dealing-customers-insult/comment-page-1/#comment-303490 Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:51:22 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48259#comment-303490 C:

The business could argue in court that a reasonable customer would have been aware of the prevailing practice of non-disparagement, no?

(Either way, they shouldn’t be allowed to file the suit in the first place.)

]]>
Comment on “Law firm mistakenly identifies dead smokers as alive in 588 suits” by Boblipton http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/law-firm-mistakenly-identifies-dead-smokers-alive-588-suits/comment-page-1/#comment-303484 Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:58:34 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48212#comment-303484 What’s an error rate of 78.4% among friends?

Bob

]]>
Comment on How Langewiesche got that Vanity Fair story by Glenn Garvin http://overlawyered.com/2014/09/william-langewiesche-vanity-fair-chevronecuador/comment-page-1/#comment-303478 Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:07:18 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=48007#comment-303478 Ms. Hinton’s claim that I didn’t give Mr. Langewische a chance to respond is absurdly false, as his own letter demonstrates. I emailed him on Aug. 31, asking for his response to what I found in the court exhibits. He did not reply for five days, until after the column was published. Had he sent even a short note suggesting he needed more time to frame a reply, I would have been happy to delay the column. He did not, and so I did not.

]]>