2008Digital Commons (University of Georgia School of Law)Open access

Who Can be Against Fairness? The Case Against the Arbitration Fairness Act

Peter B. Rutledge

Open full text 6 citations

Abstract

In this brief essay, I hope to lay out the case against the Arbitration Fairness Act. Part I of this Article addresses the "findings" on which the act is premised. It explains how in several respects the current research on arbitration flatly contradicts the premises animating those findings (in other respects, the data is incomplete, so the "findings" at best are better described as "untested hypotheses" or "assumptions"). Part II of this Article explains why postdispute arbitration is not a viable alternative to our present system of enforceable predispute arbitration clauses.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In this brief essay, I hope to lay out the case against the Arbitration Fairness Act. Part I of this Article addresses the "findings" on which the act is premised. It explains how in several respects the current research on arbitration flatly contradicts the premises animating those findings (in other respects, the data is incomplete, so the "findings" at best are better described as "untested hypotheses" or "assumptions"). Part II of this Article explains why postdispute arbitration is not a viable alternative to our present system of enforceable predispute arbitration clauses.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In this brief essay, I hope to lay out the case against the Arbitration Fairness Act. Part I of this Article addresses the "findings" on which the act is premised. It explains how in several respects the current research on arbitration flatly contradicts the premises animating those findings (in other respects, the data is incomplete, so the "findings" at best are better described as "untested hypotheses" or "assumptions"). Part II of this Article explains why postdispute arbitration is not a viable alternative to our present system of enforceable predispute arbitration clauses.

Key concepts: Arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Compulsory arbitration, Jury, Law and economics, Law, Arbitration clause, Business

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Who Can be Against Fairness? The Case Against the Arbitration Fairness Act — Research Paper | ScholarLens