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