Quote:
Originally Posted by MRM
Yes, it is probably enforcable, unless there's a quirk of local law that invalidates it. This situation is different than the one Sammy described. His situation was a unilateral change in an employment agreement that was not supported by additional consideration. The employer was asking (coercing) the emplyees to waive a right voluntarily and receive nothing in return.
In your case one party to an ongoing two-sided contract is saying that they don't want to continue the relationship any more unless you agree to change the controling agreement. You have the option of declining the change, in which case they'll cancel your account. The consideration given for the change in policy is each side agreeing to continue to do business with each other.
If you have a dispute with them that predates the change in policy, like an error in your account that happened last year, they probably can't enforce the arbitration clause retroactively. But if you stay with the bank they can probably enforce the arbitration clause on a going-forward basis.
Arbitration clauses on bank accounts and credit cards aren't entirely bad. They can reduce the cost of litigating a small claim to the point that the card/account holder can afford to fight the case and get a fair shake wth a neutral arbitrator. The question is who appoints and pays for the arbitrator and is he really neutral.
|
Pretty good analysis-but in the context of a consumer contract for essential services-ie a bank-there may be a backlash with courts finding it unconcionable. These are routinely upheld in insurance contracts, however. There is a difference in that insurance contracts have to be approved by state regulators, cc and other bank contracts not always so.