Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1552966
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (333)



 


 



Letting the Arbitrator Decide Unconscionability Challenges


Karen Halverson Cross


John Marshall Law School in Chicago

February 14, 2010

Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution, Vol. 26, p. 1, 2011

Abstract:     
This article examines how courts are allocating jurisdictional questions relating to unconscionability to the arbitrator, and assesses the approach of U.S. courts to this issue from a historical and comparative perspective. The U.S. allocation rule is evolving towards one of deference to the arbitrator, allowing the arbitrator to make an initial determination of whether there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. As a matter of timing, the U.S. approach is becoming more similar to that of France. Such an approach, especially in the commercial sphere, has the potential to be relatively efficient and consistent. But in the context of mandatory arbitration of employment, franchise and consumer disputes, such a delegation of authority to the arbitrator effectively removes an important check (the unconscionability doctrine) on the use of one-sided arbitration clauses. Although under French arbitration law, courts defer to the arbitrator’s jurisdictional determinations until the award-enforcement stage, French law prohibits pre-dispute arbitration of consumer and employment disputes. Recent U.S. arbitrability decisions may prompt Congress to set similar limits on mandatory arbitration.

In a subset of U.S. arbitrability decisions, courts have applied dictum from First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan to find that parties to a standard form, mandatory arbitration agreement contracted for the arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson appears to uphold this line of case law. However, since Rent-A-Center is based on the separability rule of Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., the decision leaves unresolved important questions regarding the scope and implications of the First Options dictum.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 78

Keywords: Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Contract, Unconscionability, First Options, Rent-A-Center

JEL Classification: K12, K41

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 15, 2010 ; Last revised: October 4, 2011

Suggested Citation

Cross, Karen Halverson, Letting the Arbitrator Decide Unconscionability Challenges (February 14, 2010). Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution, Vol. 26, p. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1552966

Contact Information

Karen H. Cross (Contact Author)
John Marshall Law School in Chicago ( email )
315 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, IL 60604
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,272
Downloads: 207
Download Rank: 84,598
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  333

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.344 seconds