It's like forced arbitration clauses. Yes, they're useful in certain contexts, but the second the power dynamic changes between the two entities, forced arbitration should no longer be valid.
Thus an arbiter who wants to keep on being an arbiter will tilt things considerably towards the powerful and an arbiter between two powerful entities will split their decisions about in the middle. Give a union binding arbitration and they can simply double their demands and end up with basically whatever they really asked for in the long run.
He balked at having the car repaired by a bodyshop, because he wondered what else might be wrong. Tesla offered a new, identically configured car to replace the defective one. However, they wanted him to sign what was effectively an NDA. The problem was that he couldn't, as he'd already talked to people about it. Even if he hadn't, he probably would not have signed it anyway on general principles.
This sounds like a garden-variety term of a settlement agreement. The parties disagree as to whether money is owed, and to settle their dispute, the contractor is offering the customer some money (or at least to drop their demand for some amount of payment) in exchange for not publicizing their grievance.
In this case, the homeowner decided not to accept the offer, and so they are exercising their right to complain about the contractor.
The fact that this made the news is probably the most newsworthy thing of all.
What's weird about this is that the CBC is portraying this as though the money involved is not in dispute. But that can't be the case: if you already have a contract, you can't add terms to the contract without changing the consideration in some way. For example, if I agree to lawn for $20, and then I mow your lawn, you can't demand that you sign a non-disparagement agreement for me to get my $20. But if I mow only half your lawn and then demand it, then you can. The consideration for the non-disparagement agreement is your foregoing legal action against me.
* When a contractor holds petty cash hostage like this, take them to small claims and don't let them force you to sign away your rights.
* Don't do business with a group that can't see why "OGC" is a bad initialism.
Why is it a bad initialism?
I've recently had a minor renovation in my condo (removing/replacing "Kitec" piping, ugh, what a mess). Getting the contractors to come back and fix all their mistakes and screw ups ("oh, it's normal that all the taps should cause loud thumps in other rooms when you turn them off") took weeks.
The big difference for me is that I still owe them the majority of the cost. I'll happily pay it, now that all of the nonsense is over with and we have our repairs, but I sure as heck won't be signing any paperwork that says I can't speak freely about the experience.
> Class action lawsuits were filed in Canada and the US and recalls began in 2005. IPEX, the manufacturer, and its insurer deny that the system is defective but agreed to a $125 million settlement.
The pipes were also installed by non-certified plumbers (problem #2), I'm pretty sure. In many cases, the pipes were not tied into anything in the wall. We had to fix the last couple of these issues ourselves, where the pipe was actually resting against the drywall, and would move, thumping against it. All the while the contractor is saying this is normal and expected.
My wife, a certified Professional Engineer, something in her finally snapped. She said "get in the car, we're going to Rona". I dutifully followed her around with a basket that she filled with equipment and supplies. We cracked open the walls, tied in the pipes correctly, patched the holes, repainted. Home back to normal now.
Not only are they refusing to refund for the issues that are their fault until such an agreement is signed, they are refusing the finish the work that the customer has (presumably) already paid for. Definitely a company to avoid.