Court Throws Out Arbitration Agreement - Ep. 6.112

[@atticstattic]

_Previously on Lehto's Law:_

[@loschekell]

This is a real problem with nursing homes. Read the contract if your family member has to go to a nursing home. Nursing homes are notorious for their mendacity.

[@ratbread53023]

No intro voice over please. Sincerely your fan.

[@nmccw3245]

Not a robot? Proof required.

[@M.A.T.T.A.L.I.A.N.O]

NMCCW sounds kind of like Jan or whatever her name is from the Toyota commercials

[@situationmoney]

Go to a doctor, hire a plumber, rent a storage unit - everyone wants you to sign an arbitration agreement. It's getting ridiculous. State lawmakers need to step in and require that arbitration be an option that both parties must agree to. And, if one party doesn't agree to arbitration, the other cannot deny services. If this continues, we won't need civil courts...

[@colt4667]

Arbitration is a way to avoid civil courts. You're having your case heard by an arbitrator instead of a judge and jury.

[@baloneyjusticecheezedog]

I like this actually.... This is a sensible idea.

[@funnyfarm5555]

@@colt4667 But as Steve pointed out '.20' some arbitration forums may cost you 2K+ to get started. So if the Arbitration forum was truly fair then It would be good. I remember the union had a list of arbitrators and each side could eliminate x number until one was agreed upon.

[@colt4667]

Roger - you are right to point this out. If it costs that much just to access the procedure then it's no good.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

Arbitration should only be forced if the company pays the fees. If they get to pick the field of battle, they should be forced to pay for it

[@nickb2245]

I wonder when the courts will realize that an arbitration agreement that you can't understand is the same as one you can't see.

[@marvin-the-martian5194]

I delivered pizza for a few years as my last job before retirement. I disagreed with a few clauses in the employee handbook and especially the required arbitration agreement. I signed my name and added "signed under duress as a condition of employment". Much hatred ensued. I was quite amused.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

You would be surprised how many things in an employee handbook are actually against labor laws. The most common ones being, must speak English at all times, cannot discuss wages with other employees

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

That would be such a bad thing for the courts to have allowed. An arbitration clause was printed onto the side of a cereal box and the cereal had rat poison in it, you have to go through arbitration to file a suit against the cereal company.

[@tinderbox218]

Just buying a common product off the shelf binds you to a contract of that sort?

[@PvblivsAelivs]

I would like to see courts throw out more arbitration clauses. Their mere existence usually indicates how much more power one party has than the other.

[@ray495903314]

not to mention it goes against the 7th amendment

[@freecycling6687]

My new shingles never even sat on the lawn a day. They went right from the flatbed of the truck that delivered them, onto a small crane that lifted them to the guys on the roof. I asked to hitch a ride as they went up so I could read the wrapper, but the crane operator looked at me like I was nuts, and just mumbled something about "liability."

[@gonzahe1983]

Ratify =\= to be turned in to a rat.

[@michaelmcbride4310]

I am not a robot either

[@thomasridley8675]

Business has been working hard to remove any coverage for defects. Making it as difficult as possible to get relief. The dual clutch transmissions are a good example of greed over providing a product worth the price.

[@kellyfisher4378]

That ending, I am not a robot is awesome!

[@JoshShultzandKids]

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT A ROBOT WOULD SAY!

[@Jalapenoman]

And I just had a reminder from KZbin that terms change Dec 10th, please review. Hmm. Probably requires arbitration.

[@gunsgalore15]

as a roofer myself I've nailed thousands of bundles of shingles and I honestly can't remember the last time I actually read the instructions. Also what brand shingles were they? I'm seeing other people mentioned Tamko( one of the worst manufacturers in my mind) if that is true I wouldn't be surprised at all. Now you have inspired me to go read single labels.

[@michaelmarcoux3653]

"And no, I'm not a robot." Well, you should be.

[@kruleworld]

Robots these days! They don't even realize they are robots...

[@flick22601]

WOW! Steve's hit the big time. He now has a non-robot doing his introduction. I'm impressed. Wish I was that important. lol.

[@DavidSmith-jv6fw]

Quite a relief to hear it's an actual person, wow.

[@honey5bucket]

@@DavidSmith-jv6fw Actually, I wanted the name of the software package that had such natural sounding output.

[@Fred-F4]

There should be an end to this arbitration BS. Period.

[@donarnold8268]

Thank You!

[@rlacroix4]

Why not add. “. Heressssss. Stevo!”

[@b0rd3n]

light was so bad back then, love the content as usual! Thx

[@illeatyourbird4149]

What’s with the robot Steve?

[@danbat5420]

Not a ROBOT!!!...sweet...there needs to be applause after the introduction...yup

[@brandonpeterman9964]

Interesting new intro and ending

[@VC-Toronto]

I read recently in the news that this past January Amtrack added an arbitration clause to their train tickets, which forces disputes into arbitration with no right to go before a judge or jury.

[@ipsurvivor]

Makes sense. Lots of times the contractor buys the materials and consumer/customer pays for it through the cost of job.

[@primoroy]

How do you free yourself of boilerplate arbitration clauses? Cross them out at the store before you pay for the product?

[@zeon5323]

Also love the epilogue!

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

Hey! Did you hear About this lawyer who went to a fancy restaurant for a meal? He thought the meal included dessert. It did not. So he had to file a torte claim! Ba Dum Dum. (I know the joke is over, but it just came to mind!)

[@winstonsmith3070]

I was involved in a major lawsuit against a $20 billion dollar company who breached our contract as well as engaged in "fraudulent inducement," "unjust enrichment" among other nefarious acts. Sued them (name deliberately omitted) in NJ State Court. They moved it into Federal Court where it languished for about a year. Because of an agreement in the contract it was sent to arbitration. My initial arbitration fee, if I recall correctly, was $10,000 for the AAA. Then I had to pay my portion for the room. The arbitrator was $600 an hour. Add to that my lawyer at $350 an hour; accountants $250 an hour throw in stenographers and all the ancillary expenses and you see where this is going. Needless to say, in the immortal words of Roberto Duran, I cried "no mas." I threw in the towel... The moral of the story is don't agree to arbitration agreements and don't try to sue a $20 billion dollar company unless you have unlimited resources!

[@andykapsar4667]

isnt it shitty when doing the moral decision gets overridden by the logical decision?

[@oldman6495]

Caught the very end. I was going to bitch about the sounds of the woman in the beginning sounding like a robot. LMAO

[@artistryarticle6859]

New subbie. Very good explanation, Steve ❤

[@rangerdan824]

Steve a robot? Come on! Everyone knows Steve's human (well, as human as a lawyer can be). Whoever heard of the Freemasons admitting a robot, especially one wearing a toupee?

[@andrewheaton5320]

So the decision wasn't that the Tamko needs to pay to re-roof the house, just that they couldn't hold the homeowner to binding arbitration. Next step would be a lawsuit by the homeowner; will be interesting to see what happens. And the background (from the decision): "A third party contractor installed TAMKO Building Products, Inc.'s (TAMKO) shingles on Daniel and Barbara Williams' (Homeowners) roof in June of 2007. In April of 2016, the Homeowners noticed that the shingles were "cracking and de-granulating." The damage to the shingles caused "structural problems to their home." The Homeowners contacted TAMKO, and TAMKO requested the Homeowners submit a warranty claim. The Homeowners complied. Three months later, TAMKO sent the Homeowners a letter offering one square of replacement shingles and a certificate for $100 to cover installation costs..."

[@mystichawk1612]

Finally a sensible decision regarding arbitration. I hate that nothing in today's world doesn't bind people to arbitration. Want a job give away your rights through arbitration.

[@AverilDoyle]

I'm just waiting for that intro voice to start telling me that they are trying to reach me about my vehicle's extended warranty.. Maybe it is just shell-shock from the 20-30 robo-calls a day that I get..

[@jayherde0]

Steve - Good looking tube :-)

[@mikedelcaribe7422]

Are arbitration agreements affected by the merchant being a monopoly? For example if the merchant is a water and sewer company and they are the only provider that can service the address. I would think that affects the consumers ability to freely consent to an agreement.

[@copwcuffs5415]

Same thing happened at a roofing job in Colorado. Attorney for the homeowner said the only thing the manufacturer could do be forced to do is replacement of the faulty material with new at the time of replacement (no cash back option, and no cash for new leaking roof at all.) The installer did the installation so they could not be held accountable even though they used obviously defective material.

[@SakuraNyan]

I still can't see how any court can rule that any binding arbitration agreement is constitutional? "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That doesn't strike me as ambiguous -- 'shall be preserved' is bloody clear, after all. At the time the constitution was adopted, I'd think one of the chief forms of civil suit would have been over contract disputes, so someone saying "oh I get to choose the tribunal" wouldn't have made sense.

[@dpwaaw]

I got so caught up in the intro, I forgot about the hunsky

[@rymat1427]

You are right on that Steve, prior, subsequently, and furthermore I think are a lawyer's favorite words. I think this whole arbitration world is stupid! I'll take an old fashion cause of action with case eval. Any day

[@DogsBAwesome]

The complaint (which can be found here) alleges that TAMKO sold consumers a faulty product that cracks, curls, deteriorates, and blisters, in addition to other problems that result in property damage. Allegedly, TAMKO never tested how long the shingles would last, and even though they come with warranties that go up to 50 years, TAMKO routinely obstructs and/or improperly rejects warranty claims, and doesn’t cover the cost of labor when accepting warranty claims. Looks like Tamko make shitty shingles.

[@groermaik]

Can you strike out an arbitration clause in a contract?

[@rnordquest]

Of course you can. Getting the other party to initial it and sign is the hard part. I've done it on employment contracts.

[@markmascaro6892]

This reminds me of the "Shrink Wrap" licenses that software companies used to use and got thrown out. The license restricted use and other things you could do with the software including you did not Buy the software but were paying a one time lease to use it and the company could order you to stops using the software. But it was inside the shrink wrap and became enforced when you opened the wrapper, but you could not return the software if the wrapper was opened. Catch 22

[@brentfrancis9187]

Tamko shingles are good for one thing, filling landfills.

[@wolvenar]

Maybe the word usage is an area specific, cultural, or maybe even generational difference? The words "prior" and "subsequently" are used in my local vernacular pretty much as commonly as before and after. Examples of proper uses as I understand it. When telling a story we will use prior and subsequently. Whereas before and after are used in instruction.

[@jacobgreengas7121]

Same here, usage of both of those words is incredibly commonplace where I'm at. I can't think of anyone I know who would struggle with them.

[@blueridgebikeman]

Steve, My wife and I bought a new SUV in 2017. Shortly afterward, I was telling a friend about it. He told me we probably signed an arbitration agreement. I said "No way." He claimed just about ever dealer in Virginia does it. He also told me car dealers had killed deals with him, at the very last minute, because he refused to sign car-purchase paperwork containing an arbitration clause. (He went to another state, where found a dealer that didn't require it.) When I looked over the paperwork from 2017, I discovered that, as a new-car-buyer "gift" to us from the dealership, the dealership "gave" us 6 months of Subaru StarLink service (like OnStar) plus 6 months free roadside assistance, and buried in the paperwork for that was an arbitration clause. Here's the question I have: I NEVER sign any contract (including the one for the gift) with my name. Instead, I always scrawl "I'll Sue" on the signature line. Does that protect me if/when I have some dispute with the dealership. (None so far, thank goodness).

[@rnordquest]

My guess is you would have to line out the clause, initial it, and get the dealer to initial it. If you don't both agree to it, it's not a contract.

[@gerble36]

I'm not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure you could draw stick figures giving the middle finger and it will still count as your signature. The point is to state that you read and agree with it. If you have witnesses that saw you sign that paper, and or backed up by video, you are prolly not going to win that arguement. It's the same arguement on whether typing your name/statement on an online form constitutes a signature or not as well. Alternatively, this is why it is important to read the paper work. No matter how long it is. By signing it, you state you have read it. Saying "But I didn't read that" or " It isn't fair that was put in there" doesn't hold a lot of mustard in court. They have your signature, which means you stated you read and agree with it. If they buried the clause in that paper work, you might have avoided it by refusing the "free" gift and not signing that portion.

[@jonsmith1259]

Buying tires which are defective, and the Tire Store tries to say "The sticker on the tread of the tires we peel off and throw away state you agree to arbitration" I imagine we may see a case of that type in the future.

[@iandrury710]

Subsequently implies a causal link between events, afterwards does not?

[@stevelehto]

Not really. Tuesday is prior to Wednesday, subsequent to Monday.

[@jeepien]

You're thinking of *consequential*.

[@iandrury710]

@@stevelehto This uses the adjective form "coming after something in time; following". Subsequently is the adverb form "after a particular thing has happened; afterwards." That's what I was thinking, let's not fall out over it.

[@iandrury710]

@@jeepien Yes, I think your right. I guess I meant a particular rather than a causal event?

[@josephgodfrey8468]

When someone says "prior"... I'm always thinking "Richard"???

[@RobEnbody]

Do you think this will have any trickle down effect? There are so many arbitration clauses on products and services today that if nothing changes, simply being a consumer is tantamount to giving up your rights to a non arbitrated legal process.

[@mikegray3274]

Additionally if the contractor could not read the packaging do to their primary language was different they would not be able to read it anyway and pass the information on

[@MrScotttraynor]

love the new ending :)

[@SubPablum]

You now have to prove your not a robot, please provide...

[@CarlJohnson-ry3gc]

If you are not a robot please stop calling me because the telemarketer that l keep hanging up on has the same voice.

[@stevelehto]

The voice is a real human. Professional voice over artist. Funny how people now think every voice they hear is a "robot."

[@groermaik]

Hundo, unfolded, between the driver side of the Tucker '48 and the passenger side of the Ferrari on the top of the right side of the cabinet. 377.

[@markfox2026]

That’s like saying stay back 200 feet Not responsible for damages You read the sign so to bad

[@danieldudzik6470]

Very pleasant sounding voiceover.

[@kzdiver6169]

And one baby zebra!

[@nowthatsjustducky]

Daffy still lost that one there, thanks to the laws of cartoon physics and cartoon logic.

[@BIGDAVE5352]

Another legal term I like is “Tort Feaser .” I learned that in law school. It is a potential name in my subsequent purchase of a new yacht!

[@stevelehto]

I had a professor make us chant, "You can always sue the tortfeasor!," because so many students forgot that in their rush to name all of the more distant parties.

[@vmlinuxz]

I like your old in person intro :). The new it's not bad though.

[@M.A.T.T.A.L.I.A.N.O]

David Carroll we’re taking donations to get James Earl Jones to do his intro

[@sammybubba176]

yeah. i agree. if you do decide to keep the new format, maybe zhush it up a bit. "bing, bing, bong! and now! fireball whiskey brings you the...STEVE..LEHTO..SHOW!!" da-ta-da-da....

[@JasonW.]

@@sammybubba176 "That was Jasmine, and up next is Mercedes! Don't forget to tip your waitress!"

[@M.A.T.T.A.L.I.A.N.O]

Deryk Robosson he and snoop dogg are the alternates. I think JEJ saying “this...is Steve Lehto” a la his “this...is CNN” would be good. If you go with SLJ, however, it’s got to be a play on his “mother f’ing snakes on this mother f’ing plane”.

[@diablominero]

My mom's a lawyer, so "prior" and "subsequently" don't sound very weird to me.

[@Watchingyou-daily]

Now the real question to this case is if the plaintiffs would have bough the shingles themselves would the law play out the same?

[@cleaner10399]

your intro/outro voice sounds lovely.

[@stevelehto]

Thanks!

[@rangerdan824]

November 1973: "...because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook." November 2019: "And no, I'm not a robot." Just coincidence or something more???

[@musclesmouse]

I want a person commenting here to defend the shingle company. Usually there is someone always wanting to defend big corporations. Also, I am not a robot.

[@stevelehto]

Don't worry. It sometimes takes the contrarians a bit to figure out what their angle is going to be. But they WILL get here.

[@JasonW.]

Refute: The company did warranty the homeowner's shingles: not once did they say they would not cover the shingles virus. Other than that, I have no reasonable action by the company that isn't in bad faith.

[@JasonW.]

@@stevelehto isn't the saying, when the law isn't on your side, yell louder?

[@stevelehto]

@@JasonW. I like that!

[@musclesmouse]

@@JasonW. If that were the case, I would win every argument and even contract no matter how it is written. ;)

[@AndreasInGreer]

Great explanation of arbitration agreements, Steve. If the contractor's agreement had elements of the contractor being hired as an agent, would that in turn have any effects on the outcome because the agent could indeed have seen that arbitration agreement on the packaging? Is an agent and their decision always binding their customer to those decisions (and agreements)?

[@prieten49]

Why is that a "great" case? It seems to me the plaintiff benefited from a very unique situation: he or she never was aware of the arbitration clause. What the rest of us consumers are suffering from are fine print arbitration clauses buried in pages of legalese in contracts we HAVE TO sign because there is no alternative. Just about all manufacturers, employers and web pages have arbitration clauses in their contracts/customer agreements, so it's almost impossible to avoid them. You would never be able to buy anything, get a job or use the Internet unless you signed the contract.

[@JTA1961]

Learn /practice signing F U really quickly & with a flurish

[@myutube6422]

Sounds like you talked your girlfriend into doing your opening.

[@copwcuffs5415]

👍It wouldn't be his wife; A wise man would never enter a legal agreement (marriage) when the system was corrupted so the other side could take 1/2+ everything (including children) away based only on their feelings inspite of "no fault (divorce)" on the other party. Prenuptial agreements, once thought to prevent corruption, are now ignored by the family court system.

[@ThomasSpademan]

Man, Canadian robot technology is way far ahead of the rest of the world's.

[@kdautoks]

Never buy Tamko shingles!!!!!

[@tumblebugspace]

The new voice-over is strange and out of place, even if it ISN'T a robot.

[@tomcriscenzo7333]

Everyone using federal reserve notes or any application for federal reserve notes has its own arbitration clause built in , it requires a notice of change in terms and conditions. Title 9 being positive law which works in concert as its own tribunal and separate jurisdiction NO court can interfere with the arbitration unless disclosure of the facts were withheld from cognizable or reasonable understanding of the language used in the contract itself . This is why many states have enacted legislation that requires language not only in plain English but also disqualifies legalese language itself as it is deliberately misleading almost an entirely different language in and of itself 82 STAT 146 says “ all transactions are credit transactions “ Let that sink in especially when you read your truth in lending disclosures especially the cost of your credit YOUR CREDIT by application through a third party Arbitration was enacted by congress as a way out of their incompetence in transcribing any laws Prima facie evidence Positive verse non-positive laws work in state and federal contracts when ANY controversy exists Love your work Steve !

[@Dr.M.VincentCurley]

You know, I've been ratified before and clearly it wasn't an enjoyable experience, but wow, you get hit with one of those cheap subsequently shingles that falls from the roof, that can ruin your day for shore!

[@havocsquad1]

One bit of advice, don't let the robot AI voice practice law. A superintellegent AI lawyer is probably more dangerous than Hal 9000.

[@andykapsar4667]

would only disagree if steves name was dave

[@um5785]

Steve where can I learn more about this UCC law?

[@stevelehto]

The Uniform Commercial Code is online. Michigan, for example, is found at mcl 440.1101 and so on.

[@um5785]

@@stevelehto thank you I'll look for it.

[@adaml2932]

For years I've thought it wasn't fair. Some of the arbitrator agreements I've read are fair, where they pay 4 it & u r allowed to pick from a approved list but most aren't fair. This goes against the whole spirit of a contract (a meeting of the minds, what 2 people agreed 2 on an arms length transaction) when it's a pre-filled form transaction u have no choice if u need the product/service

[@franciscajauregui6022]

Arbitration is unconstitutional because it does the opposite and suppresses the employee even more ,Arbitration cause more damages to client.

[@mikelakner5622]

I didn't think she was a robot. But I'm guessing 37 years old, 5' 6" with brown to black hair about 135 lbs with origins in the Wyoming area. Do I win a book if I nailed it?

[@stevelehto]

I mentioned earlier, she was Canadian. Not sure if that helps you.

[@mikelakner5622]

@@stevelehto Much of Wyoming is like much of Canada.

[@billrehm3590]

Tamco shingles are crap.

[@jbaum8804]

Unimpressed with Not A. Robot

[@lawrencetaylor5481]

Still like watching but, not a fan of the new intro. Just my opinion.

[@marshallallensmith]

In my state arbitration is... Oh nevermind.

[@atticstattic]

It would be perfect if you used Schwarzenegger's voice for the intro....

[@randymeyer8624]

With "I'll be back" at the end?

[@ptrsrrll]

Steve - I am a great fan and subscriber. Please lose the top and tail.

[@franciscajauregui6022]

An arbitration takes advantages of employees becuase of there living situation and employees have no choice but to sign it cause they have to feed there families or pay there bills.There afraid that they might not get hired if they refuse and people despredly need to work and feed familiy and pay bils and have no way to defend themselves to top it off.This is suppression and uncostiturional.Please abolish this.

[@jeopardy4100]

Ratus ratus ....ratify ha ha ha. Progress.....Congress ha ha ha.

[@eddiehuff7366]

Hmmm...wait a minute. I think the roofer is acting as an agent of the shingle manf. Just like a mechanic that's buys a defective starter or a surgeon who buys a defective artificial hip.

[@stevestalock3200]

Love the new intro and outro voice! I wish I could have her voice on my Garmin - much more pleasant. Subsequent is a confusing word used only by attorneys? Have we damaged our language so much that simple words are now confusing? I must be a linguistic mutant as far as non-attorneys are concerned. SMH.

[@samhaines8228]

Totally a robot. Nice try though.

[@stevelehto]

This is like the toupee joke. It wasn't funny the first time. Now it's just old.

[@mikedelcaribe7422]

Can one place a disclaimer on a personal check used to make payments to try to limit over reach by the merchant? I have seen something similar on business checks: "By cashing this check, you agree this payment of $x,xxx.xx shall be a full and final settlement."

[@elikarttunen6593]

No. You can’t write that on your mortgage payment and expect the lender to forgive the balance. One party can not unilaterally alter a contract, even still if you think by them cashing the check that is acceptance of a lesser amount... you’d be wrong another time because that alteration of the original contract (promissory note) is lacking “consideration.” Good try, but if it really worked, I’m sure the lenders would wise up. :)

[@mikedelcaribe7422]

@@elikarttunen6593 I was actually thinking of a problem I have had with my local water company rather than a lender. They made a bad reading of my water meter and overcharged me based on that bad reading. Then when they made the next reading, the reading from the meter was lower that the previous (bad) reading which would have lead to a negative consumption if they calculated were to have calculated the consumption. So in that period after the bad reading, they did an estimated consumption based on previous months. The total consumption for these two periods (initial reading minus final reading) was considerably less that what they billed billed me. I complained and they did make an adjustment (for which they never provided any supporting basis for their adjustment), but the adjustment was still short by $104 from what I calculated using the initial and final readings of the two billing cycles. Several months later, they made another bad reading on my meter, but this time I caught it immediately. In the last error, the bad reading was less than the prior reading which again would have resulted in a negative consumption so again they put an estimated consumption on my bill. Normally an estimate would have been OK, but I had been away for the whole billing period so the actual consumption was actually nearly zero. I again complained that they made a bad meter reading and they sent someone out to reread the meter which gave a good number that would have given a small consumption. Then they sent me a followup letter stating that they verified the meter and found that it was working properly and mad no adjustment to my bill. But at least the letter had the new reading. I then went to the local office to straighten the bill out. The water company service representative that I met did not have the competency to understand that I had been overcharged. She did not understand how to calculate the consumption. Ended up having to speak with here supervisor who immediately saw the problem and issued a credit. Previously I had suspected that there was a criminal intent to try to squeeze money from customers using illegitimate calculations, but after this last encounter, I came to realize that it is a simple lack of competence. The local water company uses a lot of temporary (3 month term) workers for their customer service. They lack the training and experience to be able to handle anything more than the most basic of functions. The ones that they have answering the phones. The supervisor that resolved the issue on my last bill compared them to telemarketers.

[@mikedelcaribe7422]

@@jmr I can't do much with the past bills, but if they send me another $400 bogus bill, I could send it back with the corrections and complete explanation for the basis of the correction (as I had in the past) along with a check that states it is payment in full for amount due that I recalculated.

[@mikedelcaribe7422]

@@jmr What is the letter grade that you are recommending to add? Currently I am reading the meter during the days that I expect them to read the meter. I had also been photographing the meter, but realized that I didn't have a way of proving the date that the photo was made on. I can always call them to come out and read the meter when I detect an error, and at least last time they did send me a letter stating what the new reading was and the date on which it was made.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

@@elikarttunen6593 "because that alteration of the original contract (promissory note) is lacking 'consideration.'” In the event of a dispute.(say you have been arguing that you have already paid in full and the check is an attempt at compromise) the check itself _is_ consideration. But in the event of a dispute, I'm sure they would demand a check without the stipulation.

[@masterk99999]

Steve, the new inrto and outro are horrible. They just drive me crazy.

[@cryptoace007]

L798

[@rlacroix4]

Hey. What’s with the new woman voice doing the introduction? Actually kind of cool

[@stevelehto]

Just trying to class things up a bit

[@rlacroix4]

Steve Lehto Its actually really good.

[@rlacroix4]

I will suggest some theme music. Maybe the theme from the original . Perry Mason show, my favorite TV show

[@bicyclebookster6510]

@@rlacroix4 copyrighted.

[@rlacroix4]

Bicycle Bookster But Steve is a lawyer. Lawyers are not under copyright laws. As long as they are members of the Bar.

[@ridestreet20]

I don't like the new intro

[@swdierks]

Explain how this made it all the way to the supreme court?

[@RobertSzasz]

State Supreme Court?

[@jimrogers2824]

Do us a little favor. I really appreciate it when you take the time to explain / define legal terms, however would you please spell some of the words us normal people may not know. Today you used a work (I would mention it but I don't know how to spell it), meaning "you could have but didn't but should have" and stated there were books written on the definition. I really wanted to look it up to learn more about it but cant find it.

[@stevelehto]

estoppel?

[@____-gy5mq]

Jim Rogers timestamp?

[@jimrogers2824]

@@stevelehto Thanks.