Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the SupSupreme Court Flaunts and Flunks Contracts (and Why Contracts Teachers Need Not Teach the Cases)Lawrence A. CunninghamGeorge Washington University Law School. Iacunningham@law.gwu.eduFollow this and additional works at: https//scholarship.law gwu.edu/faculty_publications Cf Part of the Law CommonsRe Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supcommended CitationLawrence A. Cunningham, 'Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the Supreme Court Flaunts and Flunks Contracts (aRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
nd Why Contracts Teachers Need Not Teach the Cases).' 75 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 129-159 (2012).This Article is brought to you for free and open access :LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supinistrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact spagel@iaw gv.-u eduRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the Supreme C ourt Flaunts and Flunks ContractsLawrence J. CunninghamSupreme Court rhetoric about the role of contracts and contract law in arbitration Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supjurisprudence differs sharply from the reality of its applications. In the name of contracts, the Court administers a self-declared national policy faRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
voring arbitration, a policy directly benefiting the judicial branch of government. This often puts the Court’s preferences ahead of those of contract:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supion a policy in tension with constitutionally-pedigreed access to justice and venerable principles of federalism.This Article documents the rhetoric-reality gap and explores why it exists and w hy It matters. The rhetoric-reality gap is attributable in part to a dilemma the Court created for Itself: Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup its national policy favoring arbitration is consiitutionally-suspect unless people assent. yet letting people make what contracts they wish w ould prRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
event implementing the national policy. The jurisprudence diminishes the Court’s legitimacy, tempts defiance, creates doctrinal incoherence, and poses:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup national policy favoring arbitration and truly respect freedom of contract or come dean about its national policy’s real implications and acknow ledge Its narrow conception of contract and contract law. Alas, its most recent work. Ill the 2011 AT&T V. Concepcion case, the Court continues to adhere Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supto the rhetoric-reality gap it has created for itself.Introduction2I.Documenting the Rhetoric-Reality Gap8A.Interpretive Presumptions and Limited ChoiRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
ce of Law 11B.Clarity of Intention15c. Federal Severing of Private con tracts17D.Dealing with Silence by Federal Judicial Fiat19E.The Death of Contrac:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supories30D. Costs35Conclusion39’ Herny St. George Tucker III Research Professor. The George Washington University Law School. For helpful comments. thanks to Barbara Black. David Horton. Alan Morrison. Margaret Moses. Alan Rau. Jean Stemlight, and Stephen Ware. For usefill discussion, thanks to partic Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supipants in workshops at the 2011 Association of American Law Schools Federalist Society Meeting: Duke University Institute for Law and Economic PolicyRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
(ILEP»: and Florida State University.IntroductionIn contract law. what parties intend is more important than what judges think, no less true concernin:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supeans of dispute resolution.1 2 * Congress reversed that hostility in a 1925 statute, now called the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)." It directed judges to enforce arbitration agreements, as they enforce other contracts.' allowing that (hey could be unenforceable on such grounds as any other contract. Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the SupThat reversal succeeded.4 * * * * 9 boosted by dozens of Supreme Court opinions since 1983 expanding the statute’s sweep. After arbitration won legitiRhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
macy, with nearly all stales adopting the Uniform Arbitration Act? some judges became hostile to litigation and many arc enamored of arbitration? The :LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supal route to private dispute resolution?1See Katherine v.w. STONE & RICHARD A. Bales, arbitration Law 22-41 (2d ed. 2010); STEPHEN K. HITTER & Maureen a. Weston. Arbitration: Cases and Materials 1-14 (2d ed. 2006): Christopher R. Drahozal. Commercial Arbitration: Cases and Problems § 1.06 (2d ed. 200 Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup6); Jeffrey w. Stempel. A Beller Approach IO Arbitrability. 65 TUL. L. REV. 1377 (1991); U.S. Asphalt Refining Co. V. Trinidad Lake Petroleum Co.. 222Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Sup
F. 1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1915) (review); German-American Ins. Co. V. Etherton. 4] N.w. 406 (Neb. 1889) (example); Tobey V. County of Bristol. 23 Fed. Cas. 1:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the S Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence- How the Supbased. See Stone & Bales, supra note 1. at 30. The federal statute was originally called the United States Arbitration Act. 43 Stat. 883.:LAXV SCHOLARLYCOMMONS-GW Law Faculty Publications & other WorksFaculty Scholarship2011Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the SGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook