Should large corporations be allowed to make customers sign a document in which they wave their right to a trial by jury in the case of unresolved major disputes, and instead must agree to use an independent arbitrator appointed by the corporation?
This is primarily a topic for thought and discussion. If you read a contract for a service carefully (e.g., your satellite TV contact), there is a good chance that it includes a section in which you agree to have an unresolved dispute settled by a independent arbitrator (one which was selected by the company no less), and that you waive your right to have the matter resolved via a trial by jury.
Why is this the case? One reason is that the average present-day American is effectively illiterate and innumerate. The company may be in full compliance with its contract, but the average American is unable to read and completely understand a business contact and all of its nuances. Furthermore, the average present-day American is innumerate which means that s/he isn't good with numbers in a general sense. In plain English, this means that a jury may award millions of dollars in punitive damages, but may not even be able to write out the number that they awarded in standard currency notation (e.g., $37,500,000.00). Furthermore, if one of the jurors were to suggest increasing or decreasing that amount by, for example, 10%, most people would have absolutely no idea how to do that (or even estimate the answer), even if given a calculator and unlimited time.
Another concern is that Americans have become very much opposed to rich corporations and rich individuals. A jury is quite likely to barely even listen to a case in which an individual is suing a large company, and may rush to award the biggest settlement possible in an effort to “stick it to The Man,” and in an effort to be supportive of a “regular person” to whom they can relate.
This is all just something to think about and discuss with those concerned. It also relates to many other topics in the book such as whether jurors should be required to pass a test and/or have a minimum level of education, and whether they should in some way be questioned to ensure that they have understood all of the nuances of a case.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
Why is this the case? One reason is that the average present-day American is effectively illiterate and innumerate. The company may be in full compliance with its contract, but the average American is unable to read and completely understand a business contact and all of its nuances. Furthermore, the average present-day American is innumerate which means that s/he isn't good with numbers in a general sense. In plain English, this means that a jury may award millions of dollars in punitive damages, but may not even be able to write out the number that they awarded in standard currency notation (e.g., $37,500,000.00). Furthermore, if one of the jurors were to suggest increasing or decreasing that amount by, for example, 10%, most people would have absolutely no idea how to do that (or even estimate the answer), even if given a calculator and unlimited time.
Another concern is that Americans have become very much opposed to rich corporations and rich individuals. A jury is quite likely to barely even listen to a case in which an individual is suing a large company, and may rush to award the biggest settlement possible in an effort to “stick it to The Man,” and in an effort to be supportive of a “regular person” to whom they can relate.
This is all just something to think about and discuss with those concerned. It also relates to many other topics in the book such as whether jurors should be required to pass a test and/or have a minimum level of education, and whether they should in some way be questioned to ensure that they have understood all of the nuances of a case.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents