ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at mreed@ku.edu .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWare, Stephen J.
dc.date.accessioned2011-04-08T16:57:42Z
dc.date.available2011-04-08T16:57:42Z
dc.date.issued1996
dc.identifier.citationStephen J. Ware, Arbitration and Unconscionability After Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 31 Wake Forest Law Review 1011-1035 (1996).
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/7376
dc.description.abstractIn 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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWake Forest Law Review
dc.subjectArbitration
dc.subjectUnconscionability doctrine
dc.titleArbitration and Unconscionability After Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorWare, Stephen J.
kusw.kudepartmentLaw
kusw.oastatusfullparticipation
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher version
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record