| Volume 143 Number 65 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Because of COVID-19, unemployment rates are high and many people’s cash flows are low. Scammers view these as ripe conditions to strike. They’ll stop at nothing — not even a pandemic — to trick you into sharing your personal or financial information. That includes pretending to be a government official from the Federal Trade Commission to gain your trust. Click here for more.
Texans Struggling with Unpaid Tickets Get New Self-Help Resource
Ticket Help Texas is a new online resource by advocacy and legal organizations Texas Appleseed and the Texas Fair Defense Project that provides information for Texans who are unable to pay fines and other costs as part of fine-only criminal cases, including traffic tickets.
The toolkit, available at www.TicketHelpTexas.org, covers a range of topics for people in an effort to help people who do not have their own legal representation in Class C misdemeanor cases: advice for appearing in court, how to prove inability to pay fines, alternative sentences like community service, and how to clear OmniBase holds that prevent people from renewing their driver’s license when they have not paid fines.
Click here for more.
Your Money
Fielding calls from debt collectors is never fun. These callers, who have been tasked with collecting overdue, forgotten or delinquent loans, may phone you during the day, send collections letters to your home or even file a lawsuit for repayment. If the debt is an affordable one you know you forgot to pay, stopping the calls can be as simple as writing a check. But in other instances, say, if the debt is sky-high, the caller sounds fishy or you're not sure whether the debt is your responsibility, you may want to take a step back and negotiate with the debt collector. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Canada Supreme Court finds Uber arbitration agreement unconscionable. Plaintiff provides food delivery services in Toronto using Uber’s software applications. To become a driver for Uber, H had to accept the terms of Uber’s standard form services agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, H was required to resolve any dispute with Uber through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands. The mediation and arbitration process requires up-front administrative and filing fees of US$14,500, plus legal fees and other costs of participation. The fees represent most of H’s annual income. The court found that applying the unconscionability doctrine, there was clearly inequality of bargaining power between Uber and Plaintiff. The arbitration agreement was part of a standard form contract and a person in his position could not be expected to understand that the arbitration clause imposed a US$14,500 hurdle to relief. The improvidence of the arbitration clause is also clear because these fees are close to H’s annual income and are disproportionate to the size of an arbitration award that could reasonably have been foreseen when the contract was entered into. Respect for arbitration is based on its being a cost-effective and efficient method of resolving disputes. When arbitration is realistically unattainable, it amounts to no dispute resolution mechanism at all. In this case, the arbitration clause is the only way H is permitted to vindicate his rights under the contract, but arbitration is out of reach for him and other drivers in his position. His contractual rights are, as a result, illusory. Based on both the financial and logistic disadvantages faced by H in his ability to protect his bargaining interests and on the unfair terms that resulted, the arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore invalid. Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller Click here for more.