The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements

94 Pages Posted: 24 Aug 2017 Last revised: 1 Apr 2018

Stephen J. Ware

University of Kansas - School of Law

Date Written: August 21, 2017

Abstract

"The Politics of Arbitration Law and Centrist Proposals for Reform", 53 Harvard J. on Legislation 711 (2016), explained how issues surrounding consumer, and other adhesive, arbitration agreements became divisive along predictable political lines (progressive vs. conservative) and proposed an intermediate (centrist) position to resolve those issues. However, "The Politics of Arbitration Law" did not argue the case for this centrist position. It left those arguments for two more articles: (1) "The Centrist Case against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law", 68 Florida Law Review 1227 (2016), which argued against the overly-conservative parts of current arbitration law; and (2) this Article, which argues against progressive proposals to repeal, not only the overly-conservative parts of current arbitration law, but also the parts of current arbitration law that should be retained. While progressives would prohibit enforcement of individuals’ adhesive arbitration agreements, this Article argues that such agreements generally should be enforced.

Keywords: Arbitration, Contracts, Consumer, Employment, ADR

Suggested Citation

Ware, Stephen J., The Centrist Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements (August 21, 2017). 23 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 29 (2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023465

Stephen J. Ware (Contact Author)

University of Kansas - School of Law ( email )

Green Hall
1535 W. 15th Street
Lawrence, KS 66045-7577
United States
785-864-9209 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.ku.edu/ware

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
13
Abstract Views
187
PlumX