anjur Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 I have a dispute with Lowes (about incorrectly installed countertops), claim being worth about $2K-$3K.The contract states that ...claims will be resolved by binding arbitration.. Customer and Lowes give up the right to go to court to enforce this contract (except for matters that may be taken to small claims...)Does this wording mean that arbitration and small claims are mutually exclusive? Which one seems the most appropriate venue, given that amount is relatively small and local arbitration rate is $200 per party per hr.It is really more about principle than money - they are behaving like arrogant a**holes and I want to teach them a lessonAny advice would be very much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeluver43 Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 It just means that matters that are small claims don't make business sence to the OC to go to Arbitration over.Why would they want to spend upwards of $10k over a $2k issue?Thats the simplest way I can sum it up. If you are suing them, then its up to you how much you want to make it hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anjur Posted May 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 You think they would call my bluff if I elect arbitration or would economic sense prevail and they'd they try to settle (just fix the damn thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts