Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Jul 10, 1997 at 06:36:13PM -0400, Peter Swire wrote:
> At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the
> >constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors,
> >lawmakers, consumers, etc.
> >
> >Two recent example:
> >
> >1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of
> >$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping
> >of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!)
> >on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge
> >case.)
> 
>         So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless
> a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously
> be far-reaching ramifications.  For instance, an individual's right to sue
> in tort can be cut off.  Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined
> class of suits, etc.
>         If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the
> basis that it is unconstitutional.  That's what happened with CDA -- the
> indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.

Hmmm.  I thought the basis was completely different.  I thought the
deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting
suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies.  That
is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit. 

As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co.  And
there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech
issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between
the parties of a civil suit.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html