I was talking to my father about the peoples court and I asked him what he thought of it and he said that it was stupid because there was no way that Wapner could legally make you do anything. I thought about it and it makes sense its a court on a tv show not a branch of our legal system. If what he says is true about the peoples court wouldn't the same thing be true about Judge Judy?
shareIt's binding arbitration. Does this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123357/faq?ref_=tt_faq_1#.2.1.1 help?
shareAs said it is legally binding arbitration. These cases are actual small claims cases that have been filed. So yes, they have to abide by the judges decision. That being said they get paid to be on the show so even if they lose they still win something.
shareSome losing litigants state "in the hallway" that they intend to take the case further and higher.
They are apparently ignorant of the fact that when they agree to binding arbitration, they forfeit the right to appeal.
The arbiter's ruling is FINAL.
They may be ignorant about their rights regarding appeals, but at least they don't say, "It is what it is."
:-D
Speaking of hallway conversations, don't you just love it when Curt asks a litigant if they learned a lesson, and they say yes they have, then he asks what that lesson was and they reply with, "Um... Uhhh." Or worse, "never trust anybody."
Over to you, Harvey.
I usually find the people that say such things are foreign where English is their second language and they don't fully understand what legally binding arbitration means.
shareI usually find the people that say such things are foreign where English is their second language and they don't fully understand what legally binding arbitration means.