Law Commons^™

In Conspicuous Terms-- Arbitration Agreements For The Modern Reasonable App User, Michelle Dunbar

William & Mary Business Law Review

Two recent decisions regarding the validity of arbitration agreements in mobile apps have come to opposite conclusions despite utilizing the same legal standard and concerning the same app—Uber. While the Federal Arbitration Act strongly favors the validity and importance of arbitration agreements, it appears that judge’s subjectivity based on common knowledge and understanding of apps is influencing the outcome of cases concerning the validity of these arbitration agreements. To the modern app user, are these terms really inconspicuous? For businesses, this could mean that instead of competing in an already saturated app market by enhancing their design and integrating branding …

Courts Gone “Irrationally Biased” In Favor Of The Federal Arbitration Act?—Enforcing Arbitration Provisions In Standardized Applications And Marginalizing Consumer-Protection, Antidiscrimination, And States’ Contract Laws: A 1925–2014 Legal And Empirical Analysis, Willy E. Rice

William & Mary Business Law Review

Spanning nearly forty years, the Supreme Court has issued multiple decisions and stated categorically that “judicial hostility to arbitration” was the sole impetus behind Congress’s decision to enact the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. In fact, before the FAA, systemic trade-specific problems and practices generated heated disputes and widespread litigation among merchants and trade organizations. Thus, to arrest those constituents’ concerns, Congress enacted the FAA. Briefly, under the FAA section 2, arbitration is mandatory if a contractual arbitration provision is valid and a controversy “arises out of the contract.” However, common-law rules of contract formation are equally clear: Standing alone, …

Arbitration As Contract: The Need For A Fully Developed And Comprehensive Set Of Statutory Default Legal Rules, Jack M. Graves

William & Mary Business Law Review

This Article analyzes the United States Federal Arbitration Act, as a statutory framework for effective arbitration of contract disputes. While arbitration under this Act has been subject to ever increasing criticism and calls for reform on a variety of fronts—most often from the perspective of consumer or employment arbitration—this Article focuses specifically on commercial, business-to-business arbitration and critically evaluates the Act as a set of default legal rules governing arbitration as a unique contractual business relationship.

The Article first looks at arbitration from a contractual default rules perspective and then employs this perspective to analyze: (1) the existing federal statutory …

Texas Elective Workers' Compensation: A Model Of Innovation?, Jason Ohana

William & Mary Business Law Review

Workers' Compensation is often described as a bargain between employers and employees. Employees give up the right to sue their employers in negligence for workplace injuries, and, in return, employers agree to pay predictable, statutorily mandated benefits to injured employees. Over time, this “bargain” became compulsory in every state but one. Texas is the only state in which employers and employees can decide whether or not to enter the workers' compensation bargain. This elective system has some fairly serious problems, and many have advocated its abandonment. This Note analyzes the system's history, compares the system to conventional compulsory systems, analyzes …