PointofLaw.com

FORUM FEATURED DISCUSSIONS PoL COLUMNS LEGAL EXPERTS ARTICLES BOOKS PODCASTS LINKS MASTHEAD ADVANCED SEARCH

FORUM

« Nevada Supreme Court rejects third-party pharmacy liability | Around the web, January 13 »

January 12, 2010


In defense of mandatory arbitration clauses

Jonathan Adler at The Obiter Dictum (New York Law School) outlines arguments made by Paul Bennett Marrow:

1. Entering into a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause is essentially a voluntary choice made by all parties involved.
2. Mandatory arbitration is needed to mitigate the effects of asymmetrically-held information.
3. A commercial system without the right to arbitrate will (a) suffer from increased costs across the board, (b) limit lending to only the safest recipients, and (c) overburden courts.
4. There is insufficient empirical evidence to support enacting the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009.


Posted by Walter Olson at 10:06 AM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Miscellaneous









 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.