Millions of MasterCard holders in Great Britain could benefit from a recent lawsuit filed by a former financial services regulator. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard charged higher fees to stores and merchants and those fees were then passed on to consumers. The lawsuit demands MasterCard pay $14 billion pounds, which is the equivalent of $19 billion U.S. dollars.
The lawsuit states that MasterCard engaged in these practices from 1992 to 2008, and the lawsuit also alleges that consumers were paying an ‘invisible tax’. In 2014, the EU’s antitrust regulation found that MasterCard did in fact charge stores excessive fees in order to process international payments, according to Entrepreneur.com. MasterCard, the second largest payment network
The "American Rule" invites frivolous lawsuits and creates a bottleneck in the legal system. Because there is no substantial disincentive to file a lawsuit people at large find just about any reason to sue, especially businesses whom are presumed to
In the case of Woolworths and Coles, both businesses are being investigated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for abusing their market power by intimidating suppliers to reduce the price of products so they can buy them for cheap. Due to Woolworths and Coles
...e a loss otherwise. The management’s lack of legal knowledge might have led them to assume that it was the McCaulleys’ responsibility to read all the terms and conditions, and simply refunding the deposit would satisfy these terms. In my opinion, NFM, like many other businesses, may have believed in consumers’ naivety. NFM did not foresee that the McCaulleys would bring the issue to court and appeal the trial court’s decision. The company managers did not follow the golden rule of treating others like they would like to be treated, and failed to consider the public disclosure test and the universalization test. As a result, the McCaulleys received only frustration in return for their patience in doing business with NFM. Had NFM had a clear formal policy about representing the contract terms to customers prior to billing them, the situation would have been different.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
Jessica A. Rebarber, (2011), Credit Suisse v. Billing: The Limited Impact on Application of Antitrust Laws in Federally Regulated Industries Following the 2008 Financial Crisis and Beyond, 6 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 417, Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl/vol6/iss2/7
Do you remember the lawsuit about the woman who ordered the McDonald’s coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonald’s because it did not have a warning label on it? What about the woman who fell in the fountain at the mall while texting and wants to sue the mall? These lawsuits may seem fairly farfetched. They fall into the category called frivolous.
García, J. A. X. E., Zeldin, C., & Lardner, J. (2010). The Credit Card Industry Burdens Borrowers with Unfair Interest Rates and Hidden Fees. In J. Tardiff (Ed.), Current Controversies. Consumer Debt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Gotcha!, Up To Our Eyeballs: How Shady Lenders and Failed Economic Policies Are Drowning Americans in Debt, pp. 37-53, 2008, New York, NY: The New Press) Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.rproxy.iwcc.edu
The initial decisions of our group on the Nolan Ryan baseball card case were split evenly on whether or not the care should be returned. There were 2 members (Amy Plastow and Darrin Neil) who believed Brian Wezesinski should return the card to Joe Irmen, while 3 members (Alyshya Cubean, Kelly Brudvik, and Madeline Wade) felt Brian should make the decision to keep the card. The final person in our group was on the fence thinking that morally Brian should give the card back but that legally Brian has the right to keep the card (Joseph Hanley). In the first discussion on Tuesday, November 7th we discussed everyone original decisions we walked through everyone’s answers and opinions on the ethics worksheet. Our discussions weren’t very constructive
This short report aims to give a brief overview of Deutsche Bank’s alarming situation and describe the sharp decrease of its profitability. It will briefly introduce the context of this crisis and aim to explain it through an analysis of one of the most used indicators of performance for banks, the return on equity (ROE).
In the articles written by Richard L. Abel and Peter W. Huber both have valid arguments with extremely different viewpoints on the litigation process. Peter W. Huber feels there is too much litigation in our country to where it cripples our society to become more successful. Huber feels there is less encouragement for citizens to take matters in their own hands and take responsibility for their actions. With a rather different perspective Richard L. Abel feels we have too little litigation rather than too much, he believes that manufacturers' products and services cause this and more litigation is actually needed. Abel feels that all injuries that happen to individuals should never go uncompensated. Whether you agree with Abel's theory or Huber's theory on the litigation process today, each makes perfect sense and also has statistics and scenarios to support their theory.
Frivolous Lawsuits As children our parents tried to instill in all of us good moral judgment and common sense. However, if I was to open the newspaper I would surely find any number of articles on the latest frivolous lawsuit, these being even more outrageous than the ones in yesterday’s paper. How have we as a society, which is completely capable of rational thinking, allowed ourselves to become so intertwined in the blaming game?
During the 113th Congress, the United States Senate voted 69-27 to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 bill on May 6th 2013. The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA) is a proposed legislation that would require online vendors to collect and submit all their sales tax and use tax. The bill still needs approval from the House of Representatives before it can become a law .Supporters of the bill are large retailers like Sears and Target, who claim they are at a price disadvantage because they have to charge sales tax on every sale while online retailers do not. On the other side are e-commerce companies such as eBay and Overstock.com, as well as small online merchants, who say that complying with 45 state sales laws and more than 9,000 jurisdictions is too much complicated and costly .
Where in 56 million payment cards were stolen and the issues related to the occurrence.
When people think of predatory pricing, two main laws come to the minds of most...
Are they tempting fate by inviting the potential for problems? After all, one unexpected expense, and the credit card user won’t clear his/her balance…and before you know it…credit card debt.