May 3, 2010
Here is a link to an article (in which yours truly is quoted) covering the case: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100502/ISSUE01/305029980. I had a nice chat about Jackson with Professor Stephen Ware at our 20th law school reunion this past weekend. After that discussion, I am torn about predicting the outcome of this case. I think that a result going either direction could be justified. I think the outcome turns on whether an unconscionability challenge is treated as a formation challenge (i.e. challenge to the arbitration agreement itself and whether it was properly formed) or as a post-formation challenge. I think the Court could avoid the Prima Paint problem (i.e. distinguish Prima Paint, the case where the Court found that a challenge based on fraudulent inducement had to go to arbitration because the parties challenged the container contract rather than the arbitration clause) because, in Jackson, the challenge is to the arbitration agreement not to a container contract.
Last 5 posts by Sarah Cole
- Professor Nancy H. Rogers to Give 2014 Schwartz Lecture at Moritz College of Law on March 25 - March 11th, 2014
- Moritz College of Law Professor Nancy H. Rogers wins CPR's James F. Henry Award for Distinguished Contribution to Dispute Resolution - February 25th, 2014
- Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Symposium on Special Education and Dispute Resolution - January 29th, 2014
- Unsurprising Sixth Circuit Decisioin that Propriety of Class Arbitration is a Gateway Question and that Silent Clause Doesn't Permit Class Arbitration - November 15th, 2013
- Opportunity to Discuss ADR and Religion in Aspen - November 7th, 2013