Donald R. Philbin Jr., contributor to this blog, has written recently an article entitled Thankful for Unanswered Prayers? Unconscionability ‘Equilibrium,’ 27 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 145 (Oct. 2009). As its title suggests, the article discusses the salient issue of unconscionability in arbitration agreements.
Here is an excerpt:
Collision? Or Coexistence?
The issue:
The states and the Supreme Court—and now Congress—are at odds over arbitration fairness.
The problem: Who decides unconscionability?
The law is hardly settled—but the nation’s top Court rejects petitions in cases that would re-examine and reassess, and which would provide Federal Arbitration Act certainty.
The solution:
It may be best left as it is, with a federal policy favoring arbitration. International
practitioners still fear that the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act overreaches.
Read the full article here.
Edited by Russ Bleemer, Alternatives is a monthly newsletter published by the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR). CPR is offering a free copy of Alternatives. Find out more here.
Technorati Tags:
arbitration, ADR, law, legislation
Related Posts
Recent Developments in Arbitration Unconscionability
Anti-arbitration Bills | Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 and the Consumer Mobile Fairness Act of 2011
Article | The Third Arbitration Trilogy: Stolt-Nielsen, Rent-A-Center, Concepcion and the Future of American Arbitration 
Senator Al Franken Announces Plan to Reintroduce the Arbitration Fairness Act
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion | Blawgosphere Round-up on Class Arbitration Decision 
Law Review Article | Regulating Mandatory Arbitration
