首页> 外文OA文献 >Courts Gone “Irrationally Biased” in Favor of the Federal Arbitration Act?—Enforcing Arbitration Provisions in Standardized Applications and Marginalizing Consumer-Protection, Antidiscrimination, and States’ Contract Laws: A 1925–2014 Legal and Empirical Analysis
【2h】

Courts Gone “Irrationally Biased” in Favor of the Federal Arbitration Act?—Enforcing Arbitration Provisions in Standardized Applications and Marginalizing Consumer-Protection, Antidiscrimination, and States’ Contract Laws: A 1925–2014 Legal and Empirical Analysis

机译:法院因“联邦仲裁法”而“失去理性”了吗?-在标准化申请中执行仲裁规定,并使消费者保护,反歧视和州合同法边缘化:1925-2014年法律和实证分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Spanning nearly forty years, the Supreme Court has issued multiple decisions and stated categorically that “judicial hostility to arbitration” was the sole impetus behind Congress’s decision to enact the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. In fact, before the FAA, systemic trade-specific problems and practices generated heated disputes and widespread litigation among merchants and trade organizations. Thus, to arrest those constituents’ concerns, Congress enacted the FAA. Briefly, under the FAA section 2, arbitration is mandatory if a contractual arbitration provision is valid and a controversy “arises out of the contract.” However, common-law rules of contract formation are equally clear: Standing alone, standardized-preprinted application forms are not valid contracts; thus, they not enforceable. Yet, megacorporations, international holding companies, and international financial-services corporations are increasingly fashioning standardized application forms—which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Put simply, the consequences of such practices are severe: Before contracts are formed, applicants for goods, services and employment—ordinary consumers and workers as well as small-business owners, start-up entrepreneurs and prospective franchisees—are forced to relinquish their rights to litigate common-law and statutory claims in state and federal courts. Even more unsettling, a judicial split has evolved: Most federal courts enforce arbitration clauses in applications and a majority of state courts do not. Based on the compelling and unexpected legal, empirical and statistical findings surrounding the dispositions of motions to compel arbitration in state and federal courts, the Article encourages Congress to address the concerns raised here and enact the recently proposed Arbitration Fairness Act of 2014.
机译:跨越将近40年的最高法院发布了多项裁决,断然指出“司法对仲裁的敌意”是国会决定颁布1925年《联邦仲裁法》的唯一动力。实际上,在FAA之前,存在针对特定贸易的系统性问题和实践引起了激烈的争执,并在商人和贸易组织中引起了广泛的诉讼。因此,为了逮捕这些选民的担忧,国会颁布了FAA。简而言之,根据FAA第2节,如果合同仲裁条款有效,且争议“从合同中产生”,则仲裁是强制性的。但是,合同的普通法规则同样明确:单独使用标准化预印本申请表不是有效合同;因此,它们不可执行。但是,大型公司,国际控股公司和国际金融服务公司正越来越多地采用标准化的申请表,其中包含强制性的仲裁条款。简而言之,这种做法的后果是严重的:在订立合同之前,商品,服务和就业的申请人(普通的消费者和工人以及小企业主,初创企业家和准特许经营者)被迫放弃权利。在州和联邦法院对普通法和法定要求进行诉讼。更令人不安的是,司法分歧已经演变:大多数联邦法院在申请书中执行仲裁条款,而大多数州法院则不这样做。基于围绕州和联邦法院强制仲裁的动议处置的令人信服的和出乎意料的法律,经验和统计结果,该条款鼓励国会解决这里提出的问题,并颁布最近提议的2014年仲裁公平法。

著录项

  • 作者

    Rice Willy E.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号