4 ms·

I believe, at least in the US, the ideas it that arbitration is for civil dispustes, not criminal disputes. I believe your concern is that a person will be deal

I believe, at least in the US, the ideas it that arbitration is for civil dispustes, not criminal disputes. I believe your concern is that a person will be dealt with unfairly in a civil dispute... I would argue that if any arbitration clause for civil issues is to be upheld then it must be upheld for all of these agreements where there is no criminal issue; otherwise the party that feels they will do better outside of arbitration will always choose to not use arbitration regardless of their prior agreement... that seems unfair to me; to go back on the original agreement.

scott_s 11y ago
This article is part of a larger series by the NYT on the rise of arbitration: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat... The difficulty is when there is a power asymmetry in the original agreement, as there normally is when it's an individual signing a contract with a larger organization. Two large companies agreed to arbitration? Stick to the original agreement, as both sides paid lawyers to advise them on what to do, and there was almost certainly a negotiation. But individuals don't, usually, have the resources to hire lawyers or the ability to do the kinds of negotiations required to get favorable contracts. In such situations, I am troubled that we can end up signing away our ability to appeal to the courts to intervene on our behalf. If this issue gets enough press for a long enough time, I could see legislation that voids arbitration clauses in certain cases.
- KevinEldon 11y ago
  I have not read the entire series so I may be misnifored or speaking to other topics covered in the series, but I think many if not the majority of contracts are signed between parties with power asymmetry. One party write a standard contract in a way that mitigates their risk in order to provide a service and another party signs the contract to recieve the service with understanding that the benefits are worth the risk of dealing with an entity that has significantly more power then they do. I could argue the person was misniformed and mislead into signing an agreement with a relgious organization and should be free from the contract... but I could make the same argument for student loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. I can see value, and certainly abuse, in people agreeing to allow their religious organizations to arbitrate civil disputes... it would seem that people should be allowed to make the choice and suffer the consequences if the agreement is within the established law.

scott_s 11y ago

This article is part of a larger series by the NYT on the rise of arbitration: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat... The difficulty is when there is a power asymmetry in the original agreement, as there normally is when it's an individual signing a contract with a larger organization. Two large companies agreed to arbitration? Stick to the original agreement, as both sides paid lawyers to advise them on what to do, and there was almost certainly a negotiation. But individuals don't, usually, have the resources to hire lawyers or the ability to do the kinds of negotiations required to get favorable contracts. In such situations, I am troubled that we can end up signing away our ability to appeal to the courts to intervene on our behalf. If this issue gets enough press for a long enough time, I could see legislation that voids arbitration clauses in certain cases.

KevinEldon 11y ago
I have not read the entire series so I may be misnifored or speaking to other topics covered in the series, but I think many if not the majority of contracts are signed between parties with power asymmetry. One party write a standard contract in a way that mitigates their risk in order to provide a service and another party signs the contract to recieve the service with understanding that the benefits are worth the risk of dealing with an entity that has significantly more power then they do. I could argue the person was misniformed and mislead into signing an agreement with a relgious organization and should be free from the contract... but I could make the same argument for student loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. I can see value, and certainly abuse, in people agreeing to allow their religious organizations to arbitrate civil disputes... it would seem that people should be allowed to make the choice and suffer the consequences if the agreement is within the established law.