Arbitration and Unconscionability After Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto
Issue Date
1996Author
Ware, Stephen J.
Publisher
Wake Forest Law Review
Type
Article
Article Version
Scholarly/refereed, publisher version
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, the Supreme Court again endorsed a contractual approach to arbitration law. In particular, the Court requires lower courts to apply contract law principles when determining whether arbitration agreements are unconscionable. However, the Court did not explain how the unconscionability doctrine would actually be applied to typical arbitration cases. The author here picks up where the Court left off and in so doing advocates the contractual approach over competing approaches to issues of unconscionability in arbitration.
Collections
Citation
Stephen J. Ware, Arbitration and Unconscionability After Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 31 Wake Forest Law Review 1011-1035 (1996).
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.