Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Dispute resolution

2015

Faculty Publications

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Introducing The 'New Handshake' To Expand Remedies And Revive Responsibility In Ecommerce, Amy J. Schmitz Jul 2015

Introducing The 'New Handshake' To Expand Remedies And Revive Responsibility In Ecommerce, Amy J. Schmitz

Faculty Publications

There was a time when individuals would meet in person to make purchases and do deals. They would discuss the terms, assess the trustworthiness and character of their contracting partners, and conclude the deal with a handshake. The handshake helped ensure the enforcement of the deal without need for the rule of law or legal power. That handshake was one’s bond — it was a personal trust mark. With the emergence of eCommerce, however, that handshake has nearly disappeared along with the sense of responsibility it inspired. Accordingly, this article discusses how this has impacted consumers’ access to remedies regarding …


Federal Civil Litigation At The Crossroads: Reshaping The Role Of The Federal Courts In Twenty-First Century Dispute Resolution, Edward D. Cavanagh Jan 2015

Federal Civil Litigation At The Crossroads: Reshaping The Role Of The Federal Courts In Twenty-First Century Dispute Resolution, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938 to provide the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of all civil actions. The underlying theme of the Federal Rules is that meritorious litigants should have their day in court. To that end, the Federal Rules eliminated procedural pitfalls, including highly technical forms of action inherited from common law, that rewarded mastery of pleading techniques over the substantive merits of claims. The Federal Rules also introduced a simplified pleading system, commonly denominated as “notice pleading,” thereby easing the heavy burden imposed on the parties. The factual details of the case could …


When “Yes” May Actually Mean “No”: Rethinking Informed Consent To Adr Processes, Elayne E. Greenberg Jan 2015

When “Yes” May Actually Mean “No”: Rethinking Informed Consent To Adr Processes, Elayne E. Greenberg

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

It is time for us to rethink how to achieve meaningful party consent to ADR processes such as mediation and arbitration. I, along with my colleagues Professors Jeff Sovern, Paul F. Kirgis and Yuxiang Liu, recently contributed to the growing body of research finding that a party’s consent to use an ADR process rather than utilizing a court to resolve the dispute is too often neither informed nor consensual. In our empirical study “’Whimsy Little Contracts’ With Unexpected Consequences: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Understanding of Arbitration Agreements,” we found a paucity of consumer awareness and understanding of arbitration …