Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
On The Importance Of Institutions: Review Of Arbitral Awards For Legal Errors, Peter B. Rutledge
On The Importance Of Institutions: Review Of Arbitral Awards For Legal Errors, Peter B. Rutledge
Scholarly Works
In my view, legislatures, rather than courts or parties, should decide whether (and to what extent) courts should review arbitral awards for errors of law. The optimal legislative mechanism should not be compulsory but should offer parties the choice whether to "opt-in" to this regime of expanded review by inserting language to that effect in their arbitration agreement. A legislative solution with an "opt-in" feature has a sounder doctrinal foundation, better respects the distribution of power between various branches of government, involves a lower risk of error and minimizes transaction costs. From this position, two additional conclusions follow: first, courts …
Is The U.S. Out On A Limb? Comparing The U.S. Approach To Mandatory Consumer And Employment Arbitration To That Of The Rest Of The World, Jean R. Sternlight
Is The U.S. Out On A Limb? Comparing The U.S. Approach To Mandatory Consumer And Employment Arbitration To That Of The Rest Of The World, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
After quickly summarizing the landscape of mandatory arbitration both within and without the United States, this article will consider why mandatory arbitration is treated so disparately, whether it is problematic that approaches to mandatory arbitration are so varied among countries, and what the differing jurisdictions can and should learn from one another. The article concludes that the United States Congress should be very concerned with the fact that we are treating mandatory arbitration more permissively than other countries. I, along with many others, have previously presented many arguments for why mandatory arbitration is problematic. Our outlier status on this issue …
Ending A Mud Bowl: Defining Arbitration’S Finality Through Functional Analysis, Amy J. Schmitz
Ending A Mud Bowl: Defining Arbitration’S Finality Through Functional Analysis, Amy J. Schmitz
Faculty Publications
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), on the state level, prescribe a nearly identical procedural and remedial scheme for promoting independent, self-contained arbitration. To that end, both acts curtail courts' review of arbitration awards, by limiting the grounds for vacating awards to those aimed at ensuring only basic procedural fairness. Nonetheless, seemingly "pro-arbitration" impulses have driven some courts' eager application, or misapplication, of the FAA/UAA statutory scheme to enforce dispute resolution agreements that reject the acts' limited review prescriptions. This Article tackles this arguable abuse of the FAA/UAA scheme, by proposing a functional analysis for defining …