club1man
|
posted on September 17, 2002 02:41:47 PM new
I just got a fax of the courts ruling and it stated that
"the court concludes that the User agreement and the arbitration clause are substantively UNCONSCIONABLE under California law"
Even better than I thought.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 17, 2002 03:42:21 PM new
Don't bet on it. You could get people (including but not limited to yourself) into trouble by posting false information.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 17, 2002 09:20:12 PM new
Coonr,
Can't debate, so you threaten. Nice tactic
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 07:28:11 AM new
No threat and nothing to debate. The last post could be seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 07:53:42 AM new
Coonr,
By threats, perhaps you may recall saying something like this:
Coonr
Peerhaps you should go read up on Fred Moldofsky.
Last time I looked, there is still freedom of speach and in a public forum like this, I have the right to place my opinion down. Most people do not like threats.
P.S. Fred tried to pass himself off as employee of the company he posted information about.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:00:06 AM new
That was not said in this thread. Freedom of speach does not entitle someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, much like Stoney advising everyone they can disregard the TOU. If they do so based on his advice, and are harmed, he may be held liable.
Also freedom of speach does not exist on a private forum.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:02:42 AM new
He is not yelling fire in a public forum, he is just repeating what a Federal Judge has stated in his ruling. Unless you want to disregard what a federal judge says.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:06:14 AM new
No he is only repeating a few words with no context provided. Doing that, anything could be claimed..... It could still be considered an attempt to mislead, given he claims to have the complet ruling.
Wonder why all the major media missed it and good old Stoney found it?
[ edited by Coonr on Sep 18, 2002 08:08 AM ]
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:08:05 AM new
Your right, just like you claimed in several posts that an objective study was done by all the complaints on the hate sites by some guy on an ebay thread.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:09:52 AM new
Where did I say it was objective? I said it was done and reported on the eBay thereads.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:27:17 AM new
Does this look familar:
Coonr
A recent analysis of one of the major hate sites prove the opposite. The analysis (not done by me) of the complaints at one of the anomoyous PayPal hate sites yield the following results, 35 complaints, 9 lacked enough info to determine the problem, 5 were most probably the victim of one of the scam sites or emails over which PayPal has no control, 8 plainly did not comply with the terms of use, and 13 demonstrated they did not understand and comply with the terms of use. NONE demonstrated an error by PayPal.
You posted this several times, and if you are going to complain about Stoney's post saying there is no fact in it, how much fact is in this since it is not "objective"
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:32:16 AM new
FACT: It is an analysis.
FACT: It was done and posted on EBay.
FACT: It does not offer any advice.
FACT: That post cannot be compare to recommending someone DISREGARD PayPal's TOU as Stoney has done on a number of threads.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:41:00 AM new
Then give a link to the thread, if not, then that "analysis" really does not have a hill of beans to stand on.
The FACT is a Federal Judge did rule against PayPal and in that ruling, the Federal Judge did say you have the right to sue and not go to Santa Clara, you can do locally.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 08:44:16 AM new
I have not seen even that much disclosed in any major media. Even if it was, no one else is saying it is ok to disregard the Terms of Use. That is just plain stupid.
If you look you can find info on the analysis on eBay. The author does not post on AuctionWatch, so I will NOT post their info here. I am confused about what this analysis has to do with the sugject of this thread?
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:01:37 AM new
Coonr,
I do have a copy of the last page of the order and it does state the following line
the court concludes that the User agreement and the arbitration clause are substantively UNCONSCIONABLE under California law
This is right above the Judge's Name where his signature would go.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:02:41 AM new
I tried to post it here, but it did not work that well
[ edited by thchaser200 on Sep 18, 2002 11:08 AM ]
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:05:45 AM new
Yea, Yea, right. Based on punctuation and capitalization, something is missing on each end, else the Judge needs to go back to elementary school.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:10:39 AM new
What is your e-mail address, I will send it to you
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:25:26 AM new
I saw the post before deleted it. I never saw a court order written in HTML.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:26:14 AM new
Well, here is a link to the line in question
http://166.102.17.135/order.jpg
Coonr,
I realize that this may not be enough for you, so I am expecting the PayPal Spin
[ edited by thchaser200 on Sep 18, 2002 11:27 AM ]
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:29:05 AM new
The HTML was a mistake in that I was working on something else.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:51:28 AM new
First there is not even enough of the document to tell for sure if it applies to this case. Second, ss I suspected, the part everyone is leaving out goes on the say,
".... and that arbitration cannot be compelled herein. Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to compel individual arbitration are DENIED."
Your jpg does not throw out the arbitration clause or the terms of use. Keep trying.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 18, 2002 11:54:01 AM new
Good old PayPal spin. I think most people aggree that it does mean I can sue in my local area.
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 12:30:35 PM new
Easy enough. Ask your lawyer. It says in the two cases before the judge, arbitration could not be compelled. Now what did the missing part say??????????????
|
uaru
|
posted on September 18, 2002 12:32:16 PM new
Blind squirrels are more prone to finding acorns than club1man is to understanding business.
Here's a pop quiz. Just about everyone here has a credit card, right? I'd like to see a show of hands for those that don't have a binding arbitration clause in their credit card issuer's agreement.
It might look something like this:
The Agreement includes binding arbitration. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, including the right to a jury and the right to participate in a class action or similar proceeding. The Agreement will be binding on you unless you cancel your account within 30 days after receiving your card and you have not used or authorized use of your account. We may change the Agreement at any time, in accordance with applicable law and the terms of the Agreement. Yes it's real
Now there are two things you can do to find out if club1man's information means what he thinks it means. First look out the window. Do you see lawyers doing cartwheels down the street in celebrations? No... then the odds of binding arbitration in US businesses being valid are high. Second look at PayPal's or eBay's stock. Have they taken a nosedive? No... then the odds are high that club1man is still blind and lost and unable to find a single acorn.
If you feel club1man has a point (other than on the top of his head) you should contact him and look to him for information on investing your money with him. He's got some really neato information and a service that can make you a bundle.
|
kkaaz
|
posted on September 18, 2002 06:42:24 PM new
[Your right, just like you claimed in several posts that an objective study was done by all the complaints on the hate sites by some guy on an ebay thread.]
That study was done by a person who claims to be a "woman" and is known as a big time Paypal supporter and then claimed it's her site once but then it became her birds website and then even host files on me on her website for over 7 months and then claims they do not...
It's a common used disclaimed by her/him/it for many negative Paypal post as well as by the one known today as Coonr.
Nice objective study by a bird into selected paypal problems herself.......
But back on the topic. Now that the arbitration clause is out the door and I live in California,
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/
Small claims court filed in my county against a corp. allows me to file in the county where the contract was breached
"If the defendant is a corporation, you can sue where the contract was breached. "
and I used my computer for the transaction in So cal.(as they are a corporation) when Paypal duped me and then changed the user agreement and then denied the changes publicly. I can even try and suppena one rep
"If your witness will not come to court voluntarily, or will not voluntarily provide the documents or records you need, you can subpoena them"
(XXXXX is his name. He works for Paypal and is my witness to the breach or should I say key poster. I edited his name as I don't want him complaining to auctionwatch that I am still insulting him) who post often and has been caught posting out of date terms of use over and over on message boards and by e-mail....
I would love to hear him explain to a Judge how Paypal does not investigate into buyers claims of non-shipment like the terms of use says they will and explain how Paypal processes reversals based on lack of seller protection and not if the buyer really got the items ordered or not. And how Paypal changed the user agreement and sellers protection policy in at least three places in Jan 2002 from the word "chargeback" (2001) to the word "reversal" (2002) but then claimed over and over it always said "reversal" and even posted the terms with the word "reversal" for events in 2001.
I just hope those who have HARD financial losses thanks to Paypal finally find justice against Paypal...
|
Coonr
|
posted on September 18, 2002 06:47:36 PM new
I thought your lawyer/wife declined to take your case?
Be sure and let us know when you file. We will all follow very closely.
|
kkaaz
|
posted on September 18, 2002 06:52:58 PM new
coonr:
You don't need a lawyer in small claims...
You knew that didn't you. Just like you thought the multiple class action lawsuits against paypal are only from two people and no big deal.
You are a master at law...
But I will be sure to keep YOU informed...
|
thchaser200
|
posted on September 21, 2002 02:46:16 PM new
Paste the following url in and you will see the whole text of the ruling
http://www.ygoodman.com/ppjudge.html
|
andrew123s
|
posted on September 21, 2002 06:34:18 PM new
"Unconscionability has two components. 1) The existence of unequal bargaining positions and hidden terms. 2) Overly harsh or one-sided results."
"PayPal argues that nothing in the User Agreement precludes a customer from using the court system pending the outcode of an arbitration proceeding. Plaintiffs present evidence that PayPal has frozen accounts and retained funds that it alone determined were subject to dispute. The User Agreement allows PayPal to act unilaterally. While in theory the customer can seek relief in the courts, the cost of doing so would be prohibitive in relation to the amounts typically in dispute. A customer may resolve disputes only after PayPal has had control of the disputed funds for an indefinite period of time. Although PayPal alone may amend the User Agreement without notice or negotiation, a customer is bound to any and all such amendments. PayPal has not shown that "business realities" justify such one-sidedness."
That looks like it does not apply just to those specific cases.
Also:
"Prohibition against Consolidation of Claims
The subject arbitration clause expressly prohibits PayPal customers from consolidating their claims. A recent California Court of Appeals case determined that a large credit card company could not enforce this prohibition because most claims would involve consumers seeking the return of small amounts of money. The court concluded that such circumstances raise "the potential for millions of customers to be overcharged small amounts without an effective method of redress.."
That also does not look like it applies just to this specific case.
[ edited by andrew123s on Sep 21, 2002 06:35 PM ]
|
