The researchers conducted 52 in-depth interviews and the collected data were subjected to open and axial coding to generate the conceptual model. The study is exploratory and is conducted using an interpretive approach. The present study explores the socio-psychological motivations and different types of satisfaction derived from “cross-shopping” behaviour namely, showrooming and webrooming in a developing nation. HC# 4847-6510-6978 (3/15).The concepts of showrooming and webrooming have been well researched but majorly from the marketing/economic perspectives. Single print publication rights only, to Bobit Business Media. Tom Hudson is a partner in the law firm of Hudson Cook LLP and the author of several compliance manuals available at. That’s why I believe the bureau is also determined to prohibit its use in consumer financial transactions. But the bureau seems determined not to see any good in the process. You’d think arbitration must have some things to recommend it, since Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act and nearly all states have enacted laws permitting arbitration. ![]() There’s much to dislike about the CFPB’s work on arbitration. The study makes no attempt to tease out any of these distinctions. The type of dispute will have a bearing on the amount of the claim, the likelihood a claim will be appropriate for class relief (a claim of fraud in the sales process is unlikely to get class treatment because of the individualized proof required), and the likelihood a claim will be brought by a consumer (larger claims, it seems, would be less likely to be dropped by the consumer). Disputes involving these transactions can be credit-related (perhaps the finance company incorrectly charged finance charges), but they can also be car-related (the transmission failed). See, a RISC evidences the simultaneous sale of a vehicle and the financing of the vehicle. If I’m right, then much of the study gets really murky in a hurry. Perhaps the transactions studied by the bureau were loans, but I strongly suspect they were retail installment sales contracts (RISC). Sure enough, the CFPB predictably called the transactions “loans.” I think I put 200 pages behind me before I came upon anything dealing with auto financing. The study offers no insight on whether these best practices might change any of its conclusions.Īnd while there is very little in the report that specifically deals with auto credit, what’s there is close to useless because of the bureau’s continuing refusal to understand why auto credit is different from other consumer financial services. Creditors also frequently call attention to the presence of an arbitration agreement by using large type, separately boxing the clause or having it separately signed or initialed. In fact, it isn’t unusual to see clauses that provide for the payment by the creditor of some or all of the costs of arbitration. The study had some gaping holes as well, including the fact that arbitration clauses used by creditors have grown more consumer-friendly. Arbitration is both faster and more economical than litigation.Class action cases almost never make it to a trial, while a significant percentage of arbitration proceedings actually resolve the disputes.In many class action cases where the principal purpose of seeking class relief is to pressure a settlement, members of the class action got nothing or next to nothing.Three out of four consumers surveyed did not know if they were subject to an arbitration clause.īut the authors of the release seem to have overlooked these findings:.The CFPB found no evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices for consumers.(The main reason creditors use arbitration clauses is the protection they provide against class action lawyers, so it’s nice of the CFPB to point out the obvious.) Arbitration clauses can act as a barrier to class actions. ![]() ![]() (I’m not sure how this relates to arbitration.)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |