I check my site stats regularly, and was thrilled to find that someone typed the above search phrase into Google and ended up here at Caveat Emptor. When I checked the search, I was tickled pink to find out that Caveat Emptor is the first hit when you search for “godless blood sucking arbitration” (leave out the quotes when searching).
All is right with the world. Except for the godless bloodsucking arbitration portion of it, that is.
ReasonableAgreement.org, the anti-EULA.
READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
I don’t know if this stuff is enforceable, but I don’t know if EULAs are enforceable in the first place. I guess if you can waive your rights because of the privilege of pulling some shrink wrap off a package you already own, corporations can disclaim their EULAs in exchange for the privilege of reading your t-shirt.
Ted Janger & Susan Block-Lieb posted part two of “The Myth of the Rational Borrower” at Credit Slips yesterday. It’s a lot of consumer science geek speak, but pretty insightful into the borrower’s mind.
Here’s what I take away from this installment: Even if borrowers do use a pseudo-logical approach to the decision to borrow, their logic is illogical, and it also fails to take into account some of the most important considerations a borrower should be thinking about.
St. Paul apparently intends to start inspecting one- and two-unit rental properties periodically. Previously, inspections were either at the request of a tenant or (I assume) in the course of landlord licensing. According to the ACLU, periodic inspections violate tenants’ right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures.
True, probably, but they also protect tenants from landlords who can’t keep up with St. Paul city ordinances and safety codes. I certainly understand the ACLU’s perspective, but I wonder if they have a constructive suggestion to help better protect tenants from negligent landlords.
Consumerist linked to this Bankrate.com report about Chase Bank’s decision to end double-cycle billing. Says Chase’s chief marketing officer, “In our continuing review of customer feedback, we found that this practice was difficult to understand.”
To say the least. Basically, they billing every two months, instead of every month. The only clear reason was that it resulted in higher fees to Chase. Of course, the change came just before Senator Christopher Dodd announced hearings on credit card industry practices. One wonders if Chase didn’t have insider information and caught the PR wave early.
One of the victims of Miss “Ida Mae James” this Star Tribune article, came to see me a few months ago. For various reasons, we decided not to bring a civil lawsuit, but in any case, it is good to see the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office taking the initiative and pursuing a lawsuit like this. Too often prosecutors’ offices and police throw up their hands and say “it’s a civil matter” rather than do the work to prosecute.
Kudos especially to Elizabeth Johnson, the assistant Hennepin County Attorney who, although not mentioned in the article, took it on herself to work up the case and do a large part of the research and investigation to put the case together.
Article no longer available at StarTribune.com.
Hot on the heels of the foreclosure over-exposure in the news, consumer attention seems to have shifted to payday lending. Consumerist mashed together a map of payday loan centers with a map of census information, and the result is clear: payday lenders do, indeed, target less-than-affluent neighborhoods.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone, however, although it might cause us some consternation. The concentration in less-than-affluent neighborhoods should be unsurprising for the same reason that you won’t find an Aldi grocery store in an upper-middle-class neighborhood: lack of customers. Payday lending is a “subprime” market for unsecured and risky credit. There are few subprime borrowers in wealthier neighborhoods, where people have the credit score to get, say, a credit card with a bargain rate of, say, 19% APR, and don’t have to stomach the 300-1,000% APRs charged by payday loan centers.
In the wake of Donald Morgan’s staff report for the Fed, I have been thinking a lot about predatory lending, and more particularly about the myth of the rational borrower in a rational marketplace that Morgan seems to rely on in “Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending.” Lo and behold, along comes Credit Slips with a two-part essay on “The Myth of the Rational Borrower” in which new contributors Ted Janger & Susan Block-Lieb comment on a world of “rational lenders and irrational borrowers,” and test their theories against the backdrop of bankruptcy reform.
They also linked to their excellent law review article of a similar name, “The Myth of the Rational Borrower: Rationality, Behaviorism, and the Misguided ‘Reform’ of Bankruptcy Law.” We skimmed the abstract, but since bankrupcty law makes us sleepy, that’s about all we could get through.
So we don’t know if it supports our response to Mr. Morgan or not, but it appears to, and we look forward to Part Two of the professors’ blog posting, which we hope will be easier for a relative layperson to digest.
The San Francisco Chronicle ran a feature last Friday on the surprises that may be in store for a new homeowner in an “inclusionary housing” unit. Inclusionary housing is a popular form of affordable housing that is designed to integrate affordable housing into “regular” housing. For example, if a builder puts in a 10-unit apartment building, one or two of those units would be subsidized as affordable housing.
Of course, this means that, while a tenant or owner may pay less for rent or a mortgage than the rest of the building, they share the rest of the fees. Overall, we think inclusionary housing schemes are positive, but as this article shows, there may be a few surprises, and tenants and owners need to be prepared.