You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Chordie's Chat Corner → Law Court
I sometimes see an American programme called Judge Judy. The Plaintiff and the Defendant stand before no-nonsense, straight talking Judge Judy who quickly sorts out the disputes and issues rulings.
I am curious as to whether this is actually a legal court or just a TV show?
Roger
Just a TV show. She was an actual judge but isn't now. Both parties agree to abide by her decision, and they all walk away with nifty new $100 bill and a trip to the studio.
In legal terms, what she offers is contracted arbitration of small claims. That is, the parties to the dispute agree to allow her final judgment in the dispute. This is called "Alternative Dispute Resolution" and is quite common in the American legal system. I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome, but a lot of people do it because it is cheaper and less time consuming than using the courts directly.
plus they end up on tv getting their 15 minutes of fame
Thanks Jerome,
I had wondered if there may be an agreement by both parties to abide by her desisions. I only hope that they honour them otherwise a proper court case with expensive solicitors will be needed.
Still it is fun to watch.
Roger
Hi gtx,
It is surprising what people will do for their 15 minutes of fame. The one that always surprises me is the Jerry Springer Show. Anyone going on there knows that they are going to be humiliated and get in a fight (of sorts).
Roger
Thanks Jerome,
I had wondered if there may be an agreement by both parties to abide by her desisions. I only hope that they honour them otherwise a proper court case with expensive solicitors will be needed.
Still it is fun to watch.
Roger
Legal contracts have the force of law, and the fairness of an agreement isn't something the courts consider. They're only interested in if a contract exists, and what the intent of the parties was. That being the case, they must honor them. It's binding arbitration, which means that the contract states the arbiter's decision is final. If someone doesn't like it and tries to sue in the courts, the other party just need show the binding agreement and the court won't hear the case.
There is a huge difference in winning the case and collecting the money, though. The judge may award you money, but it is entirely up to you to collect it.
I was a guest on the Jerry Springer show. It was a riot. Literally.
the judge is a B----. and springer stuff is pretty much staged
I was a guest on the Jerry Springer show. It was a riot. Literally.
Joe - You can't throw that out there without more details. c'mon man spill the beans. raped by aliens? married your sister? brother? details! 
Nothing is real on TV except Wrestling!!
"....I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome,..."
Isn't that a waste of time and cost then? I would not want to go into a non-binding arbitration situation as it can take forever or, if you are an employer, it allows you to rule by fiat. If the employees then went to arbitration over, lets say a contract or employee issue, the employer, even though he may have been found on the wrong end of the decision, can impose what he wants.
We have Non-binding arbitration where I am employed due to a stupid decision by the firefighters association years ago. A few years ago I was denied my step increase because the chief heard a rumor. Though the rumor was untrue and the investigation found the rumor was baseless he decided to deny me my increase anyway. I grieved it and lost. I did not take it to arbitration because the chief, after he lost, would have denied the decision anyway.
My point is that you have binding arbitration or you don't arbitrate. Often contracts require arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. If the arbitration is not binding how does one who is wronged get their opportunity to right the wrong?
Baldguitardude wrote:I was a guest on the Jerry Springer show. It was a riot. Literally.
Joe - You can't throw that out there without more details. c'mon man spill the beans. raped by aliens? married your sister? brother? details!
Yes come on Joe, you cannot dangle a carrot like that and then just leave us in suspense.
Roger
yes Roger I'm surprised too at what people will do to get on tv. But lets face it those on Springer aint really going to make anything of theyre livves. Bald guitar dude excepted. Chordie lovers are definatley OK.
Alright, Bald Guitar Dude, lets have some answers. You've got us wondering.
I agree,would you share your experiance with us? where you just a person in the audieance or a perticipating person on stage?
I was a guest on the Jerry Springer show. It was a riot. Literally.
C'mon guys - it was clearly a joke 
Alright, you're off the hook.
"....I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome,..."
Isn't that a waste of time and cost then? I would not want to go into a non-binding arbitration situation as it can take forever or, if you are an employer, it allows you to rule by fiat. If the employees then went to arbitration over, lets say a contract or employee issue, the employer, even though he may have been found on the wrong end of the decision, can impose what he wants.
We have Non-binding arbitration where I am employed due to a stupid decision by the firefighters association years ago. A few years ago I was denied my step increase because the chief heard a rumor. Though the rumor was untrue and the investigation found the rumor was baseless he decided to deny me my increase anyway. I grieved it and lost. I did not take it to arbitration because the chief, after he lost, would have denied the decision anyway.
My point is that you have binding arbitration or you don't arbitrate. Often contracts require arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. If the arbitration is not binding how does one who is wronged get their opportunity to right the wrong?
If you have non-binding arbitration and don't like the outcome, you can always take your issue to the courts (which is where you can still go). Since the arbiters are generally paid by the employer, there is an inherent conflict of interest and bias with them. Would you really prefer to arbitrate a dispute with your employer and be forced to abide by the decision of the arbiter when the arbiter is being payed by your employer, too?
Binding arbitration offers no appeal. It is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and hoping the fox in the hen house is honest about counting them fairly. I would *never* deny myself the option of the courts.
I had a friend who was an exec producer. She got stiffed on a guest and needed a couple of fill ins, and they had to be brothers...so me and my brother went on the show with a very complicated (albeit elaborated upon) story that was, well....let's just say it profoundly stretched the truth.
But I did get to push Steve out of the way and beat the shit out of my brother on stage. That was pretty cool.
He was living on the west coast at the time so he got a free flight home and great lodging for 3 days. 
I love it, BGD. If you can't be totally truthful, you get into the spirit of the occasion. After all, it's only sleaze. I bet you guys had big fun.
sounds like you had fun doing it,especialy wacking your brother on tv in front of the world. Did you get paid too do it?
No pay, just got to hang with my brother for a few days and slap him in the face on national TV. Two friends got to come out and witness it though, so that was pretty cool. 
bunbun wrote:"....I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome,..."
Isn't that a waste of time and cost then? I would not want to go into a non-binding arbitration situation as it can take forever or, if you are an employer, it allows you to rule by fiat. If the employees then went to arbitration over, lets say a contract or employee issue, the employer, even though he may have been found on the wrong end of the decision, can impose what he wants.
We have Non-binding arbitration where I am employed due to a stupid decision by the firefighters association years ago. A few years ago I was denied my step increase because the chief heard a rumor. Though the rumor was untrue and the investigation found the rumor was baseless he decided to deny me my increase anyway. I grieved it and lost. I did not take it to arbitration because the chief, after he lost, would have denied the decision anyway.
My point is that you have binding arbitration or you don't arbitrate. Often contracts require arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. If the arbitration is not binding how does one who is wronged get their opportunity to right the wrong?
If you have non-binding arbitration and don't like the outcome, you can always take your issue to the courts (which is where you can still go). Since the arbiters are generally paid by the employer, there is an inherent conflict of interest and bias with them. Would you really prefer to arbitrate a dispute with your employer and be forced to abide by the decision of the arbiter when the arbiter is being payed by your employer, too?
Binding arbitration offers no appeal. It is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and hoping the fox in the hen house is honest about counting them fairly. I would *never* deny myself the option of the courts.
Why arbitrate then? In my book if one is going to go the route then why not just go to court? Again: Arbitration, especially non-binding arbitration is merely a waste of time. I realize many contracts require arbitration in-lieu of tort but I feel that is a way for a party to extend an issue an indefinite amount of time until the other party goes away.
Arbitration is supposed to be a way of dealing with a legal issue without tying up the courts time yet it has been bastardized as a tool to waste a person's time. Non-binding arbitration is one more way to avoid judgement even if you are wrong as it allows you, if you are the "guilty" party, to continue to tie up the other parties money and time until you get the decision that fits you.
How is that right?
I know, I know...I the legal sense there is no right or wrong just winners or losers. Perhaps the legal profession should get back to right and wrong.
jerome.oneil wrote:bunbun wrote:"....I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome,..."
Isn't that a waste of time and cost then? I would not want to go into a non-binding arbitration situation as it can take forever or, if you are an employer, it allows you to rule by fiat. If the employees then went to arbitration over, lets say a contract or employee issue, the employer, even though he may have been found on the wrong end of the decision, can impose what he wants.
We have Non-binding arbitration where I am employed due to a stupid decision by the firefighters association years ago. A few years ago I was denied my step increase because the chief heard a rumor. Though the rumor was untrue and the investigation found the rumor was baseless he decided to deny me my increase anyway. I grieved it and lost. I did not take it to arbitration because the chief, after he lost, would have denied the decision anyway.
My point is that you have binding arbitration or you don't arbitrate. Often contracts require arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. If the arbitration is not binding how does one who is wronged get their opportunity to right the wrong?
If you have non-binding arbitration and don't like the outcome, you can always take your issue to the courts (which is where you can still go). Since the arbiters are generally paid by the employer, there is an inherent conflict of interest and bias with them. Would you really prefer to arbitrate a dispute with your employer and be forced to abide by the decision of the arbiter when the arbiter is being payed by your employer, too?
Binding arbitration offers no appeal. It is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and hoping the fox in the hen house is honest about counting them fairly. I would *never* deny myself the option of the courts.
Why arbitrate then? In my book if one is going to go the route then why not just go to court? Again: Arbitration, especially non-binding arbitration is merely a waste of time. I realize many contracts require arbitration in-lieu of tort but I feel that is a way for a party to extend an issue an indefinite amount of time until the other party goes away.
Arbitration is supposed to be a way of dealing with a legal issue without tying up the courts time yet it has been bastardized as a tool to waste a person's time. Non-binding arbitration is one more way to avoid judgement even if you are wrong as it allows you, if you are the "guilty" party, to continue to tie up the other parties money and time until you get the decision that fits you.
How is that right?
I know, I know...I the legal sense there is no right or wrong just winners or losers. Perhaps the legal profession should get back to right and wrong.
I've been through the training to become an arbiter. I thought it would be a good alternative income in case my main job ever goes kablooey. Unfortunately in Virginia, one has to do a certain number of hours as a "second" to someone else to be permitted to become licensed. The "someone else's" are not terribly interested in training their competition, so it is somewhat difficult to become licensed unless one goes through an existing company. All that said, generally the arbiter doesn't know who is paying the arbitration company. Also, there is rarely any clear cut right or wrong in contracts. If there's a clear-cut wrong done, then the courts are the way to go often. But arbitration is a good way to resolve issues that are more complicated (and they almost always are). It's also how many divorce settlements are negotiated. The show on TV where a gorgeous woman who is the step-daughter to another gorgeous woman running her father's old law firm and the first gorgeous woman manipulates everyone into doing 'the right thing' through arbitration is complete hogwash. Arbitration is slow, methodical, and not done by manipulative tricks.
- Zurf
jerome.oneil wrote:bunbun wrote:"....I would never submit to binding arbitration as it eliminates my right to appeal if I don't like the outcome,..."
Isn't that a waste of time and cost then? I would not want to go into a non-binding arbitration situation as it can take forever or, if you are an employer, it allows you to rule by fiat. If the employees then went to arbitration over, lets say a contract or employee issue, the employer, even though he may have been found on the wrong end of the decision, can impose what he wants.
We have Non-binding arbitration where I am employed due to a stupid decision by the firefighters association years ago. A few years ago I was denied my step increase because the chief heard a rumor. Though the rumor was untrue and the investigation found the rumor was baseless he decided to deny me my increase anyway. I grieved it and lost. I did not take it to arbitration because the chief, after he lost, would have denied the decision anyway.
My point is that you have binding arbitration or you don't arbitrate. Often contracts require arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. If the arbitration is not binding how does one who is wronged get their opportunity to right the wrong?
If you have non-binding arbitration and don't like the outcome, you can always take your issue to the courts (which is where you can still go). Since the arbiters are generally paid by the employer, there is an inherent conflict of interest and bias with them. Would you really prefer to arbitrate a dispute with your employer and be forced to abide by the decision of the arbiter when the arbiter is being payed by your employer, too?
Binding arbitration offers no appeal. It is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and hoping the fox in the hen house is honest about counting them fairly. I would *never* deny myself the option of the courts.
Why arbitrate then? In my book if one is going to go the route then why not just go to court? Again: Arbitration, especially non-binding arbitration is merely a waste of time. I realize many contracts require arbitration in-lieu of tort but I feel that is a way for a party to extend an issue an indefinite amount of time until the other party goes away.
Arbitration is supposed to be a way of dealing with a legal issue without tying up the courts time yet it has been bastardized as a tool to waste a person's time. Non-binding arbitration is one more way to avoid judgement even if you are wrong as it allows you, if you are the "guilty" party, to continue to tie up the other parties money and time until you get the decision that fits you.
How is that right?
I know, I know...I the legal sense there is no right or wrong just winners or losers. Perhaps the legal profession should get back to right and wrong.
Non-binding arbitration offers a way to come to a satisfactory resolution without tying up the courts. In many cases, it can and does just exactly that. Most disputes (contractual, anyway) are not %100 right/wrong scenarios, and arbitration can offer up an easy way to find the middle ground. If the parties are satisfied with the outcome, then it's done. If they're not, they can then go to the courts. With binding arbitration, you deny yourself that avenue.
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Chordie's Chat Corner → Law Court
