Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1569783
 
 

Footnotes (28)



 


 



The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act


David Horton


University of California, Davis - School of Law

March 12, 2010

Virginia Law Review In Brief, Vol. 96, 2010

Abstract:     
In Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether businesses can require their employees, consumers, and franchisees to arbitrate the issue of whether the arbitration clause itself is unconscionable. The conventional wisdom, based on dicta in several Supreme Court decisions, is that parties can arbitrate the validity of the arbitration clause as long as there is clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent to do so. Conversely, this short Essay argues that courts, not arbitrators, have the exclusive power to determine whether an arbitration clause is invalid under traditional contract defenses. The source of the judiciary’s monopoly is section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which mandates that any time the “making of the agreement to arbitrate” is “in issue,” a judge must resolve the matter.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 8

Keywords: Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, arbitration, arbitrability, Federal Arbitration Act, section 4

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 16, 2010 ; Last revised: April 7, 2010

Suggested Citation

Horton, David, The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (March 12, 2010). Virginia Law Review In Brief, Vol. 96, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1569783

Contact Information

David Horton (Contact Author)
University of California, Davis - School of Law ( email )
Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
Davis, CA 95616-5201
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,106
Downloads: 67
Download Rank: 193,644
Footnotes:  28

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.469 seconds