Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That’s a mouthful, but well done. Strine is the man, of course, so that’s expected.
But re arbitration, can’t we just require it be explicitly bargained for? Say in a credit agreement, offer two rates. One for agreeing to arbitrate. Another higher rate for refusing to do so. Or in a brokerage contract, fees of XX for trades with agreement to arbitrate, fees of XXX for refusing to agree to arbitrate.
I’ve always wondered how arb clauses survive an argument of lack of consideration based solely on language in the agreement stating consideration for everything in the agreement is acknowledged.
|
I'm more defensive of arbitration I think because I see it in the international business context, where it gives us a good alternative to the wide range of national systems.
Maybe if we had a form of arbitration to use for consumers that was perceived of as less biased? Why can't courts sponsor arbitration alternatives that are less expensive but still public forums for consumers?
