The Legal Characteristics of Consumer Arbitration Clause and Defenses in the U.S. Contract Laws
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractualityand related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses. Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractualityand related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses. Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.
참고문헌 (33)
- Alderman, Richard M., "Consumer Arbitration : The Destruction of The Common Law", Journal of American Arbitration, 2(1) (2003)
- Ha, Choong-Lyong, "A Study on the Doctrine of Separability: Focused on the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act and Cases", Korea International Commerce Review, 21 (2005)
- 하충룡, "소비자중재합의에서의 ‘VKI 법리’에 대한 고찰", 중재연구, 21(3), pp.165~187 (2011), 한국중재학회
- Jung, Sun-Joo, "Protection of Consumer in Consmer Arbitration", Seoul National U Law Review, 49(1) (2008)
- Kim, Suk-Chul, "A Study on Consumer Arbitration System by Empirical Analysis on Redemption for Consumer’s Claim", Journal of Arbitration Studies, 12(1) (2002)
- 이병준, "소비자법 내에서의 소비자기본법상 집단분쟁조정제도의 역할과 과제", 중재연구, 18(3), pp.139~163 (2008), 한국중재학회
- Miller, Meredith R., "Contracting out of Process, Contracting out of Corporate Accountability : An Argument Against Enforcement of Pre-Dispute Limits on Process", Tennessee Law Review, 75 (2008)
- Monestier, Tanya J., "Nothing Comes of Nothing...", American Review of International Arbitration, 12 (2001)
- 박성용, "소비자분쟁해결제도에 중재제도 도입가능성에 관한 연구*", 중재연구, 19(2), pp.73~94 (2009), 한국중재학회
- "Review on the Adhesiveness of Consumer Arbitration Agreements - The U.S. Laws", ~ (2012)
- Summers, Robert S., "Contract and Related Obligation: Theory, Doctrine, and Practice" (2001), West Group
- "A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., 135 Cal.App.3d 473", ~ (1982)
- "AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740", ~ (2011)
- "Bixler v. Next Financial Group, Inc., 2012 WL 877109, p9, D.Mont", ~ (2012)
- "Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., 173 Ariz. 148", ~ (1992)
- "Brown ex rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 2011 WL 2611327 (W.Va.,2011)", ~ (2011)
- "Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 2006", ~ (2006)
- "Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681", ~ (1996)
- "Foslerv. Midwest Care Center II, Inc., 398 Ill.App.3d 563", ~ (2009)
- "Foss v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 477 F.Supp.2d 230", ~ (2007)
- "Fouts v. Milgard Mfg., Inc., N.D.Cal", ~ (2012)
- "Harris v. Green Tree Financial Corp., 183 F.3d 173, C.A.3 (Pa.)", ~ (1999)
- "Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, a Div. of U.S. West Marketing Resources Group, Inc., 293 Mont. 512, 520", ~ (1999)
- "Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co. 310 Mont. 123", ~ (2002)
- "Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., 203 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1205", ~ (2012)
- "Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp 128 Cal.App.4th 1305,1317", ~ (2005)
- "Patton v. U.S, 281 U.S. 276", ~ (1930)
- "Standard Coffee Service Co. v. Babin, 472 So. 2d at 124, 127", ~ (1985)
- "Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1140 C.A.9 (Cal.)", ~ (1991)
- "U.S. v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, (Cal. 9th circuit, 1985)", ~ (1985)
- "U.S. v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, (Cal. 1997)", ~ (1997)
- "United States v. Christensen, 18 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.1994)", ~ (1994)
- "Zigrang v. U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., 329 Mont. 239 (2005)", ~ (2005)