The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements
Issue Date
2017-08Author
Ware, Stephen J.
Publisher
Harvard Negotiation Law Review
Type
Article
Article Version
Scholarly/refereed, publisher version
Published Version
http://www.hnlr.org/wp-content/uploads/HNLR-Ware.pdfVersion
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3023465
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
"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.
Collections
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
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.