본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

소비자중재합의의 미국계약법상 항변

The U.S. Contract Law Defenses in Consumer Arbitration Agreement

하충룡
한국중재학회 (Korean Association Of Arbitration Studies(Kaas))|2010.08|중재연구 (JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION STUDIES)|제20권 제2호|pp. 151-172|DOI 10.16998/jas.2010.20.2.151

0

조회

0

다운로드

16

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Class Action부합계약집단소송집단중재소비자중재Consumer ArbitrationClass ArbitrationUnconscionabilityAdhesive Contract.비양심적 중재조항중재합의 조항분리원칙Doctrine of Separability
주제분류무역학

초록

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices in the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement,providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

Abstract

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices in the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement,providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. 정선주, "소비자중재에서 소비자보호의 문제", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1), pp.231~248 (2008), 법학연구소
  2. 하충룡, "최근 미연방대법원의 판례를 통한 중재합의조항 분리원칙(Doctrine of Separability)의 재평가", 국제상학, 21(3), pp.155~177 (2006), 한국국제상학회
  3. Alan S. Kaplinsky, "Consumer Arbitration: If The FAA "Ain't Broke," Don't Fix It", Bus. Law., 63, pp.907~ (2008)
  4. "Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 513 U.S 265", ~ (1995)
  5. "Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters, 711 So. 2d 924, (Ala. 1998)", ~ (1998)
  6. "Am. Gen. Fin., Inc. v. Branch, 793 So. 2d 738, (Ala. 2000)", ~ (2000)
  7. "Anderson v. Ashby, 2003 WL 21125998 (Ala. May 16, 2003)", ~ (2003)
  8. "Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, S. 1782 & H.R. 3010, 110th Cong", ~ (2007)
  9. "Armendariz v. Found Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83", ~ (2000)
  10. "Arnold v. United Companies Lending Corp., 511 S.E.2d 854", ~ (1998)
  11. "Aviall, Inc. v. Ryder Sys., Inc., 110 F.3d 892", ~ (1997)
  12. "Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 426", ~ (2004)
  13. "Barcon Associates, Inc. v. Tri-County Asphalt Corp., 86 N.J. 179", ~ (1981)
  14. Bergeron, Pierre H., "At the Crossroads of Federalism and Arbitration: The Application of Prima Paint to Purportedly Void Contracts", Ky. L.J., 93, pp.423~ (2004)
  15. "Bess v. Check Express, 294 F.3d 1298, (11th Cir. 2002)", ~ (2002)
  16. "Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, 173 Ariz. 148", ~ (1992)
  17. "Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889", ~ (2002)
  18. "Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed, 283 F.3d 1198", ~ (2002)
  19. "Dabney v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4949 (E.D. Pa. April 19, 2001)", ~ (2001)
  20. Daniel R. Higginbotham, "BUYER BEWARE: WHY THE CLASS ARBITRATION WAIVER CLAUSE PRESENTS A GLOOMY FUTURE FOR CONSUMERS", Duke L.J., 58, pp.103~ (2008)
  21. "Deluca v. Bear Stearns & Co., 175 F. Supp. 2d 102", ~ (2001)
  22. "Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681", ~ (1996)
  23. "EEOC v. Waffle House. Inc., 534 U.S. 279", ~ (2002)
  24. "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279", ~ (2002)
  25. "Finch v. Vaughn, 67 F.3d 909, (11th Cir. 1995)", ~ (1995)
  26. "First Union Nat'l Bank v. United States, 164 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Pa. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  27. "Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)", ~ (1999)
  28. "Geiger v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., 134 F. Supp. 2d 985", ~ (2001)
  29. "Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., 623 P.2d 165", ~ (1981)
  30. "Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444", ~ (2003)
  31. Harper, Conrad K., "The Options in First Options: International Arbitration and Arbitral Competence", PLI, 1998, pp.579, 127~
  32. "Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173 (3d. Cir. 1999)", ~ (1999)
  33. "Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, (9th Cir. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  34. "Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Saxton, 2003 WL 22418461, 880 So. 2d 428, (Ala. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  35. "Johnnie's Homes, Inc. v. Holt,, 790 So. 2d. 956, (Ala. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  36. "Johnson v. W. Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, (3d Cir. 2000)", ~ (2000)
  37. Kevin R. Casey, "Hot Issues Alerts-Law Firms Mandatory Consumer Arbitration, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel", ~ (2009)
  38. "Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 310 Mont. 123, 54 P.3d 1", ~ (2002)
  39. "Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, (1st Cir. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  40. "Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 2002 WL 31341084", ~ (2002)
  41. "Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429", ~ (1995)
  42. "Lloyd v. MBNA Am. Bank, 2002 WL 21932", ~ (2002)
  43. Meredith R. Miller, "Contracting out of Process, Contracting out of Corporate Accountability: An Argument Against Enforcement of Pre-Dispute Limits on Process", Tenn. L. Rev., 75, pp.365~ (2008)
  44. "Michell Nissan, Inc. v. Foster, 775 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 2000)", ~ (2000)
  45. "Mintz v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 288 B.R. 95", ~ (2003)
  46. "Mitsubish Motors Corp. v. Solee Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614", ~ (1985)
  47. Monestier, Tanya J, "Nothing Comes of Nothing ..", Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., 12, pp.223~ (2001)
  48. "Murray v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 289 F.3d 297", ~ (2002)
  49. National Consumer Law Center, "Consumer Arbitration Agreement, The Consumer Credit and Sales Legal Practice Series", ~ (2004)
  50. "Obstetrics & Gynecologists Wixted, Flanagan & Robinson v. Pepper, 101 Nev. 105, 693 P.2d 1259", ~ (1985)
  51. "Pitchford v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d. 958", ~ (2000)
  52. "Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)", ~ (1999)
  53. "Prevot v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d 937 (S.D. Tex. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  54. Richard M. Alderman, "Consumer Arbitration: The Destruction of The Common Law", J. Am. Arb., 2, pp.1~ (2003)
  55. "Sanko S.S. Co., Ltd. v. Cook Indus., Inc. 495 F.2d 1260, (2nd Cir. 1973)", ~ (1973)
  56. Sara Rudolph Cole, "The Current State of Consumer Arbitration", Dispute Resolution Magazine, 15(1) (2008)
  57. "Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F. 3d 976, (9th Cir. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  58. "Smith v. Gateway, 2002 WL 1728615 (Tex. App., 2002)", ~ (2002)
  59. "Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, (4th Cir. 2002)", ~ (2002)
  60. "Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357 (Utah 1996)", ~ (1996)
  61. "Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal. App. 4th 1519", ~ (1997)
  62. "Sydnor v. Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp., 252 F.3d 302", ~ (2001)
  63. "Szetela v. Discover Bank, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1094", ~ (2002)
  64. "Taylor v. Douglas Butler Auto Sales, 142 S.W.3d 277 (Tenn. 2004)", ~ (2004)
  65. "Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)", ~ (1991)
  66. "Ting v. AT & T, 319 F.3d 1126, (9th Cir. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  67. "Vimar Segurosy Reaseguros, S.A. v. M", V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 1995

관련 논문AI추천

소비자중재합의의 효력에 관한 미국 법원의 태도와 함의강용찬, 박원형한국중재학회 · 중재연구2011 · 제21권 제1호소비자 중재합의의 부합계약성에 관한 검토 - 미국법을 중심으로 -하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2012 · 제22권 제3호Arbitration Clause Prohibiting Class Action in Consumer Contracts이선한국중재학회 · 중재연구2017 · 제27권 제1호소비자중재에서 소비자보호의 문제정선주법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2008 · 제49권 제1호The Legal Characteristics of Consumer Arbitration Clause and Defenses in the U.S. Contract Laws하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2013 · 제23권 제3호중재합의의 당사자자치에 관한 미국계약법상 해석하충룡한국중재학회 · 중재연구2019 · 제29권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

UNCITRAL의 최근 동향 : 1976년 UNCITRAL 중재규칙 개정안의 제3회독을 중심으로강병근pp. 3-26중재협정을 통한 상사분쟁의 해결촉진김상호pp. 27-48중재인 선정과 법원의 역할에 관한 연구김철호, 박원형pp. 49-66국제중재에서의 전자증거개시 -전자증거개시를 규율하는 규정의 제정을 중심으로-안정혜pp. 67-90중국상사중재의 사법감독 실태와 개선방안김태경, 오원석pp. 91-130
원문 보기