Loading...
The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements
Ware, Stephen J.
Ware, Stephen J.
Citations
Altmetric:
Abstract
"The Politics of Arbitration Law and Centrist Proposals for Reform", 53 Harvard J. on Legislation 711 (2016), explained how issues surrounding consumer, and other adhesive, arbitration agreements became divisive along predictable political lines (progressive vs. conservative) and proposed an intermediate (centrist) position to resolve those issues. However, "The Politics of Arbitration Law" did not argue the case for this centrist position. It left those arguments for two more articles: (1) "The Centrist Case against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law", 68 Florida Law Review 1227 (2016), which argued against the overly-conservative parts of current arbitration law; and (2) this Article, which argues against progressive proposals to repeal, not only the overly-conservative parts of current arbitration law, but also the parts of current arbitration law that should be retained. While progressives would prohibit enforcement of individuals’ adhesive arbitration agreements, this Article argues that such agreements generally should be enforced.
Description
Date
2017-08
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Harvard Negotiation Law Review
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Keywords
Arbitration, Contracts, Consumer, Employment, ADR
Citation
Ware, Stephen J., The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements (August 21, 2017). 23 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 29 (2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023465