Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat

Pat wrote:
Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat


Yep, every time.

But that usually means no sale...

"Pat" wrote in message
...
Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat

It must depend on the wording of the clause. You should be able to agree
a clause that says you will endeavour in the first instance to resolve
disputes by arbitration by a named individual or organisation.
But you do not have to sign up to a clause saying that the arbitrators
decision is final. That leaves you free to settle in court if you want to
take things further.
Don't know anything about the American Arbitration Association but surely in
USA the parties to an agreement are able to nominate anyone they both agree
on to arbitrate any disputes?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?

The sales agreement can say anything that all parties to the agreement
are OK with. I almost always make changes of some sort and have
sometimes rewritten the entire agreement.

On Aug 1, 12:48*am, Pat wrote:
Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat

Thank you for the helpful replies. I decided I just wouldn't sign an
arbitration agreement. Frankly it bugs me that I'd even be asked to
but maybe it's just me. So now we'll see which they want more--a
binding arbitration agreement or a sale.
Coincidentally, the latest issue of CR says there's federal
legislation pending to make it illegal to require it for consumer
purchases.
Thanks again.
Pat

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

On Aug 1, 12:48*am, Pat wrote:
Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat

Thank you for the helpful replies. I decided I just wouldn't sign an
arbitration agreement. Frankly it bugs me that I'd even be asked to
but maybe it's just me. So now we'll see which they want more--a
binding arbitration agreement or a sale.
Coincidentally, the latest issue of CR says there's federal
legislation pending to make it illegal to require it for consumer
purchases.
Thanks again.
Pat


Just to clarify things, an arbitration clause is not an unusual
addition to a contract. In fact it is quite common.

I can't comment on your contract but in cases I have been involved in
the clause was inserted to provide a "first case" solution to
problems. In other words, before one contacted the courts one must at
least attempt to resolve the problem through arbitration. If that
failed there was nothing that prevented one from taking the matter to
the court.

Having said that, a contract is simply an agreement between two, or
more, parties to do something and all parties must agree on all
portions of the agreement. If one party does not agree with a specific
point in the agreement then that should be resolved prior to executing
the agreement.

If one party would insist on a contract being signed regardless of the
non-agreement of one of the parties then it must be a "deal breaker".

cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Aug 3, 10:16*pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:48*am, Pat wrote:
Anybody ever bought a brokered boat and refused to sign an arbitration
agreement in the sales contract?
Some if not all seem to put it into their contracts. With it, you give
away your right to seek recourse in court--though your're making a
very substantial purchase. Instead you have to agree to arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association, a company that the broker
contracts with to settle disputes--and who's apparently been in some
trouble recently over alleged bias.
I don't mean to be asking for legal advice here, but do others share
my misgivings about this? Or am I worring too much about a
technicality? Anybody ever refuse to sign that part of a purchase
agreement?
Pat

Thank you for the helpful replies. I decided I just wouldn't sign an
arbitration agreement. Frankly it bugs me that I'd even be asked to
but maybe it's just me. So now we'll see which they want more--a
binding arbitration agreement or a sale.
Coincidentally, the latest issue of CR says there's federal
legislation pending to make it illegal to require it for consumer
purchases.
Thanks again.
Pat

Just to clarify things, an arbitration clause is not an unusual
addition to a contract. In fact it is quite common.

I can't comment on your contract but in cases I have been involved in
the clause was inserted to provide a "first case" solution to
problems. In other words, before one contacted the courts one must at
least attempt to resolve the problem through arbitration. If that
failed there was nothing that prevented one from taking the matter to
the court.

Having said that, a contract is simply an agreement between two, or
more, *parties to do something and all parties must agree on all
portions of the agreement. If one party does not agree with a specific
point in the agreement then that should be resolved prior to executing
the agreement.

If one party would insist on a contract being signed regardless of the
non-agreement of one of the parties then it must be a "deal breaker".

cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for that explanation, Bruce.
It makes perfect sense that it would work that way--I'm always
surprised when legal questions have logical answers but most of them
seem to.
But, the guy nixed my offer, so we'll never know how it would have
played out.
John

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:16:12 +0700, Bruce in Bull****
dribbled:

Just to clarify things,
megalomaniac rantings flushed away

cheers,

Bruce in Deep****
(goebbelsinbangkokatwaffenss.siegheil)

WelKome back, Brucie!
All your usenet fans were sadly disappointed, you had stop posting for
nearly half a month here (rcb)!
Everybody thought your last dive from the marina's bar in the Bangkok
dock had been fatal.
Fortunately for theThai neoNazis, ur present masters, their senile
white trash is still alive.

BTW like GSS - ur SCT's sock puppet - squealed, we know that "English
as spoken in England is no longer the only valid version of the
language" but I must tell u that only uneducated illiterate buffoons
write *erronious* instead of *erroneous*.
And keep on posting ur racialist crap against the French!

Your Amigo,
Mort, the Frogman with explosives.
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they
will believe it." motto of Bruce, the Brown-eyed Mullet

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:00:13 +0700, Gross Senile Schwein
dribbled:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:02:14 GMT, (Magnus) wrote:


Your Amigo,
Mort, the Frogman with explosives.
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they
will believe it." motto of Bruce, the Brown-eyed Mullet


Hey there Frog. Why is you are so quick to copy Larb? Here you are
jabbering away about "Brown Eyed Mullets", but only AFTER the
indomitable Larb first used the term.

Your repetitive lies are pitiful, Bruce
And everybody knows that Lambgay is only your sock puppet.

Frogs are copy cats?

By the way, you never did tell us why you stopped using the pseudonym
"Deckard"? Is it because someone pointed out that on the first page of
the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by Philip K. Dick, that
Deckard, the Blade Runner, is bemoaning the death of his pet sheep
that he replaced with the purchase of an "electric sheep" while at the
same time musing on his unfulfilling marriage.

I'm sure that you aren't too stupid to understand the symbolism and
surely you do know that the character Deckard originated in a
book..... not a movie?

An Electric Sheep? Hot damn, almost as good as a blow-up doll. No
wonder that you wanted to keep it a secret.

Yawn!
You wanna tell us that you cant watch any movie in your Bangkok dock
or that u only understand the Rambo's films?

Troll-killer Mort
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they
will believe it." motto of the Brown-eyed Mullet stuck at a Bangkok
dock

Cheers,

Good soldier
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)

On Aug 8, 8:52*am, (Magnus) wrote:


And everybody knows that Lambgay is only your sock puppet.
Troll-killer Mort


******Which is far more desirable than your own choice, the "Dope from
Dublin".
A real class act you got Mullet. ROTFLMAO