Comment: Sorry to say this, but you've

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You've got it backwards (see in situ)

Sorry to say this, but you've

Sorry to say this, but you've been a lawyer too long. You can't even see when you're blowing smoke anymore. I've entered into many contracts that bind me and my counterparts by private arbitration clauses. When doing so, I agree to abide by their decision and I do so out of fear that my trustworthiness for all such future contracts relies on that. If I were to break a contract and then default on the arbitrator's decision, I would not be able to enter into any similar contracts again in the future. If I wanted to, the penalties would be much higher than paying my original debt. Geographic location has exactly zero to do with it because the jurisdiction is clearly defined inside the contract itself.

This is how contractors are more frequently hired by municipalities and it works. When used, this process virtually eliminates all the loophole crap that ends up doubling these type of projects. I've seen it personally where an arbitration decides (within one day) that a contractor is liable for a missed scope of work that he would have won his case in the courts. This is because the spirit of the contract (scope of work in this case) was easily determined and officially assigned while the actual contract missed assigning it because it was new technology. It was clearly the right thing to do.

I'm sure you would argue that if it wasn't in the contract, they shouldn't have been forced to do it but that argument only ends at arbitrary limits anyway so even the courts wouldn't settle it perfectly.

I could go on at length on specific examples but the fact is that the courts are corrupt. This is more and more the case the larger the contract becomes. I highly doubt you will find any contracts over 7 figures that rely on your eff'd up court system. Years ago, I even lost control of a project because the official courts said two words were missing from our contract, even though we proved in court that opposition knew of it prior to signing and played the entire project toward taking it over via that loophole. I doubt an unbiased arbitrator would have awarded it to them.

Is all arbitration perfect? I'll agree that it is not. But I will also say that it is becoming closer to perfection all the time while the alternative is moving the other way. I don't know anything about the OP's site other than the video but I would assume (hope) they have researched many existing problems and raised the bar some. The only real problem I know of is when a big company contracts with a little guy (an individual) and pushes "their" arbitrator into play, it is frequently a biased situation where the little guy is guaranteed to lose. This site doesn't 'appear' to be subject to that problem.

This is why I unconditionally support this movement and why I will fight hard against those that want to maintain support for the diseased, twistedly worded, archaic legal court system.