Dave Hoffman

Consumer Contracts are Fairly Readable, Suprisingly Sloppy, and Sometimes Irrelevant Recent papers that changed the way I thought about contract law

New substack post, summarizing three recent papers that changed how I thought about contracting law and policy.

profhoffman.substack.com/p/consumer-c...

As the substack explores, the right test case here could make good law protecting tenants, and given that the issue remains surprisingly unsettled now's the time to find the appropriate plaintiff to make it happen.

On balance, I think that moving most tenant living-conditions and discrimination claims into secret & individualized arbitral tribunals will be bad for society (though some tenants will benefit).

But it's not inevitable that the FAA will be read to permit the arbitration of local leases.

Out of Court, Out of Sight: Eviction Trap Arbitration Clauses in Modern Leases Landlords are using arbitration to bury tenant claims. Their legality is unsettled—and the stakes for housing rights are high.

As Marotta-Wurgler & Issacharoff have observed, the dual rise of arbitration and federal class adjudication has hollowed out state consumer and contract law governing digital technologies.

I think that the same is about to happen to real property law.

profhoffman.substack.com/p/out-of-cou...

I've a new substack post, inspired by reporting from Kate Giammarise of 90.5 in Pittsburgh. The basic gist? Arbitration clauses are spreading in leases. Their legality is unsettled, and tenant / public interest attorneys may have a small window to do something meaningful about it.

Every minute you send preparing to write is a minute you don't have to spend later adding parentheticals because you won't have time or interest, it is known.

I'm not sure if it's a big deal or not, I just started to read the relevant warrant. People get arrested in this country (wrongly and rightly) all the time. That it happened to a judge doesn't mean this is an iron curtain descending on Europe.

United States v. Joseph (2019) - Wikipedia

Judge Joseph was indicted and charges were eventually dismissed two years later.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

The foundation is concurring opinions which will always be with us, no matter now doomy your replies get.

Oh! Well, I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm just real confused by your reaction. Sorry, go back to your business! Nothing to see here.

What is a subjectivist?

Agree with everything AMK says.

Yeah, that was one where they mistakenly rejected me thinking I was you and I was like "no, friends, my work isn't that interesting."

Already submitting to law reviews I see?

For me, it's π for plaintiff.

Considering the widespread disdain for religious morality prevalent among many / most law faculty, one obvious danger is that morality talk is a one-way ticket to a particular, secular, vision of the good life.

I am not sure I buy the causality.

If this is about the person you previously tweeted about, I don't think it's the right suspicion.

The law targets actual control.

My view is that if facebook's chinese sub is in fact controlling facebook's US operations and thus gives rise to the dangers the law is targeted again, divestment seems appropriate.

I had thought--could be wrong--that Meta's chinese sub operates only in China, and doesn't have the power to compel the parent to turn over data in the way that Bytedance does w/r/t TikTok.

But if the precedent is "get a congressional act" that's hard to do!

It's true, but tomorrow is another day and maybe they'll read @joshchafetz.bsky.social's book.

Comments about questions about questions about comments: you are taking it to the next level Corey.

Maybe you misunderstand the point of the Gif which is what you were calling me obtuse!

You gave me a hypo and I responded to it; if you think that the Congressional findings aren't relevant factors, that's fine. I think I take your point to be that Congress was swayed by a "moral panic" and thus we should discount the value of its factfinding.

What I wrote, Chris, is that I now understand you to be saying something different but that I don't get the argument! And you are escalating from there for reasons I don't quite get.

Well, there're are some distinguishing factors, among them that Murdoch is a US citizen, he's not the sole owner of the firm, and there's no congressional finding that he's used ownership of the firm to advance (Australia's?) interests and collect US citizen's data to that end.

a man in a denim shirt is asking how can you be so obtuse ALT: a man in a denim shirt is asking how can you be so obtuse

I'm sorry it's clear to you and it isn't to me, Chris.

Ah, well, then I don't follow the logic.

But no doubt that's a platform problem or a me problem, not you.