Tag Archives: consumer protection
Yesterday, a federal jury in Cleveland ruled for Whirlpool Corp. in a warranty-based class action involving allegedly defective front-loading washing machines. As discussed in an earlier post, the case had been up and down to the Supreme Court, and given the Court’s recent class action rulings, that was it was allowed to proceed to trial was rather unexpected. Continue reading
Competition benefits consumers far more than so-called consumer protection laws and the red-tape they’re wrapped in. The former delivers better quality and service and a lower price, while the latter needlessly drives up costs on both sides of the transaction and keeps seedy lawyers in business. Want proof? Look at what Kia is doing in Australia, and why. Continue reading
The same article keeps popping up every other week or so in one publication or another. Its headline either asks if extended warranties are worth the cost or screams they are not. It gives the same advice – “buy smart” – and generally reaches the same conclusion on whether you should buy a service contract – “It depends”. See here, then here, here, here, here, and here. Why is somebody always picking on extended warranties?
Here are 5 reasons why I think extended warranties make an easy target. Continue reading
Commenting on An Orwellian approach to legal writing, 3 readers share insights and experiences recommending plain language. Here’s a sampling of what they have to say:
“My crime briefs ‘read like a thriller,’” says Bapoo M. Malcolm, Advocate, Bombay High Court, India.
“Practice has shown that people appreciate simplicity & clarity in comprehension compared to more technical writing (jargons & all),” observes Janice Isu, Acting Principal Legal Officer, Office of the State Solicitor, Dept. of Justice & Attorney General, Papua New Guinea.
“A company can’t hide behind fine print written in legalese. Judges rule for the average person,” declares Paul Eveleigh, a copywriter from Melbourne, Australia.
There’s more. Continue reading
It is quickly moving beyond dispute that federal consumer protection law favors binding arbitration over litigation. A North Carolina federal trial court recently joined two federal appellate courts in ruling that the federal warranty law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, does not ban binding arbitration provisions in consumer product warranties. This is good news for consumer product manufacturers, and better news for consumers if more companies turn to binding arbitration.
A dealer screws up, and the service contract company pays … at least on the PR front. A manager of a car dealership who “forgot” to write in that the service contract sold to a foreign student did not cover labor charges was ordered to pay a refund … he gave it to the customer in pennies. Continue reading
In a recent post, we commented on Hyundai’s decision to abandon the arbitration clause in its new vehicle limited warranty. A reader pointed out that, generally, in consumer-dispute arbitration only the warrantor is bound by the award. The reader is correct that where a consumer protection statute or lemon law includes a state-run mandatory arbitration procedure, it generally permits a consumer dissatisfied with an award to reject it and proceed to litigation.