2010•SSRN Electronic JournalOpen access

The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act

David Horton

Open full text 0 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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 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.

Key concepts: Arbitration clause, Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitration, Unconscionability, Supreme court, Law, Compulsory arbitration, Monopoly

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act — Research Paper | ScholarLens