We’re pleased that our friend Donald Ladew from is sitting in the guest blogger’s chair today. Thanks. Donald for this great information about arbitration.
It’s an unfortunate fact that the courts around the country are badly overloaded. The government which has to finance the court system loves the idea of arbitration because it saves money and court time. For this cerebrate lemon laws often include a method for trying to resolve lemon law disputes informally. Quite sensibly though the Congress did not deprive consumers of access to the courts. Under Magnuson-Moss (the Federal consumer warranty law) the consumer is not required to accept the result of the informal dispute resolution process. At we are frequently asked about arbitration. We do not recommend it. In California the consumer may opt out of the arbitration affect. Fortunately many states. New York included allow the consumer to opt out of the arbitration affect.
The problem in any situation requiring arbitration is equality. At the risk of being trite there ought to be a aim playing handle. In California the legislators who created our excellent Lemon Law understood this. In California the Song-Beverly Act does not demand the consumer to go to arbitration once all options that might correct the defective vehicle have been tried.
Manufacturers love arbitration. It’s just another go in the gauntlet of delays and deceptions meant to prevent the consumer’s find to the lemon law. The goal of the manufacturer is to make the consumer give up and go away. Any delay favors the manufacturer who is not the one driving the defective vehicle. The motive is the oldest of them all…or perhaps the second oldest money. Worst case for the manufacturer is a refund or a replacement. If the manufacturer has to pay the consumer that is money the corporation cannot earn income from.
Consumers are unfamiliar with the law and with the arbitration process. This can bring about to awards to the manufacturer change surface though the facts of the case are relatively clear.
Even arbitrators are not always lawyers or are they familiar with the lemon law - probably because they are not required to follow that law when issuing their decisions.
What we see most often at the conclusion of arbitration is the award of another ameliorate attempt to the manufacturer. Two or three months may have passed to accomplish this! The consumer attending the arbitration most often has already tried to get the vehicle repaired four five or change surface six times. This is not resolution; this is a gift to the manufacturer.
If there is going to be any enable giving let the manufacturer do it; they are the one’s most in be of our good will.
At Norman Taylor & Associates our Attorneys are specialists in California Lemon Law. Our goal at Norman Taylor & Associates is to give the highest quality legal representation possible.
Norman Taylor the principal attorney co-authored the first book on California Lemon Law entitled: Lemon Law - A Manual for Consumers. He recently authored his second schedule on the lemon law entitled: Lemon Law - The Standard Reference Guide which enjoys distribution and recognition on a national aim. His firms have handled over 6,000 lemon law cases forcing vehicle manufacturers to refund well over $100,000,000 for defective goods to consumers.
<a href="http://www lemonjustice com/blog/index php/2008/10/21/arbitration-good-for-the-manufacturer-bad-for-the-consumer/" >Arbitration - Good for the Manufacturer. Bad for the Consumer</a>
focuses his learn on Lemon Law. Consumer Fraud. Auto Warranty and Auto Injury litigation. He is licensed to practice in New York. Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.lemonjustice.com/blog/index.php/2008/10/21/arbitration-good-for-the-manufacturer-bad-for-the-consumer/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|