Capital Credit Marketed a Credit Card to Consumers with Low or Weak
1. Capital Credit marketed a credit card to consumers with low or weak
References:
Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The Legal environment of business and online comerce, seventh edition. Upper Sadle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
2. credit scores through direct-mail solicitations and the Internet. Consumers filed suit in state court against Capital Credit alleging violations of California 's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The consumers claimed that the Capital 's promotional materials were deceptive because they mentioned the credit card fees in small print, buried in other information and not in proximity to the representation that no deposit was required. Capital filed a motion to compel arbitration as stated in the contract. What are the issues the court will examine to decide this case? Should the court approve Capital 's motion to compel arbitration or should the consumers be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit in state court? Why, or why not?
The Federal Arbitration Act states that arbitration arrangements or agreements concerning commerce are valid, applicable, irrevocable, irreversible and enforceable contracts, unless some grounds are present at law or equity (e.g., fraud, duress) to revoke them. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) This means that arbitration contacts are legally binding as long as they are fair and nobody was physically forced to sign it. The FFA authorizes one party to acquire a court order to coerce arbitration if the other party has failed or declined to act in accordance with an arbitration agreement. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) Basically, Capital had every right to file for a motion to compel or force the consumers to abide by the arbitration agreement. The court would have to decide whether there is fraud present in the case or if one of the parties were under duress at the time the agreement was signed. The court would also have to ensure the fairness of the arbitration agreement to ensure it was not one sided. If none of those elements
References:
Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The Legal environment of business and online comerce, seventh edition. Upper Sadle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
2. credit scores through direct-mail solicitations and the Internet. Consumers filed suit in state court against Capital Credit alleging violations of California 's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The consumers claimed that the Capital 's promotional materials were deceptive because they mentioned the credit card fees in small print, buried in other information and not in proximity to the representation that no deposit was required. Capital filed a motion to compel arbitration as stated in the contract. What are the issues the court will examine to decide this case? Should the court approve Capital 's motion to compel arbitration or should the consumers be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit in state court? Why, or why not?
The Federal Arbitration Act states that arbitration arrangements or agreements concerning commerce are valid, applicable, irrevocable, irreversible and enforceable contracts, unless some grounds are present at law or equity (e.g., fraud, duress) to revoke them. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) This means that arbitration contacts are legally binding as long as they are fair and nobody was physically forced to sign it. The FFA authorizes one party to acquire a court order to coerce arbitration if the other party has failed or declined to act in accordance with an arbitration agreement. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) Basically, Capital had every right to file for a motion to compel or force the consumers to abide by the arbitration agreement. The court would have to decide whether there is fraud present in the case or if one of the parties were under duress at the time the agreement was signed. The court would also have to ensure the fairness of the arbitration agreement to ensure it was not one sided. If none of those elements
References: Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The Legal environment of business and online comerce, seventh edition. Upper Sadle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 2. credit scores through direct-mail solicitations and the Internet. Consumers filed suit in state court against Capital Credit alleging violations of California 's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The consumers claimed that the Capital 's promotional materials were deceptive because they mentioned the credit card fees in small print, buried in other information and not in proximity to the representation that no deposit was required. Capital filed a motion to compel arbitration as stated in the contract. What are the issues the court will examine to decide this case? Should the court approve Capital 's motion to compel arbitration or should the consumers be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit in state court? Why, or why not? The Federal Arbitration Act states that arbitration arrangements or agreements concerning commerce are valid, applicable, irrevocable, irreversible and enforceable contracts, unless some grounds are present at law or equity (e.g., fraud, duress) to revoke them. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) This means that arbitration contacts are legally binding as long as they are fair and nobody was physically forced to sign it. The FFA authorizes one party to acquire a court order to coerce arbitration if the other party has failed or declined to act in accordance with an arbitration agreement. (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 74) Basically, Capital had every right to file for a motion to compel or force the consumers to abide by the arbitration agreement. The court would have to decide whether there is fraud present in the case or if one of the parties were under duress at the time the agreement was signed. The court would also have to ensure the fairness of the arbitration agreement to ensure it was not one sided. If none of those elements were present then there would not be a case against voiding the arbitration agreement and both parties would be sent to an arbitrator to settle their disputes. This would mean that the consumer would not be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit in state court. 1. Identify the kind of societal expectation of behavior and what standard of behavior is most appropriate? Does law codify the standard? Does one or more of the schools of jurisprudence support the standard?