 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I removed the following content from the article:
Furthermore, arbitration clauses are often combined with geographic forum selection clauses, and choice-of-law clauses, both of which are also fully enforceable. The result is that a person involved in a dispute may find himself or herself compelled to arbitrate in a strange private forum thousands of miles from home, and the arbitrators may decide the case on the basis of the law of a state or a nation which he or she has never visited.
An arbitration clause may nevertheless be challenged and held invalid if it designates a biased party as the arbitrator. In Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc, 623 P.2d 165 (Cal. 1981), for example the Supreme Court of California found that an arbitration clause in a contract of adhesion which necessarily puts disputes before a body that would tend to be biased towards the defendant, is unduly oppressive, and therefore void as unconscionable. For this reason, many arbitration clauses designate widely recognized neutral organizations such as the American Arbitration Association.
Other terms may void an arbitration clause. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal 4th 83 (2000), a California appellate court held that a one-sided arbitration clause in a contract of adhesion for employment (deemed a necessity) may also be voided as unconscionable because of the relative positions of the parties involved. In that case, the court found there to be procedural unconscionability where an employee was held to arbitration but the employer was not (in other words, the agreement lacks mutuality of obligation, although, in Federal Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled the exact opposite on mutuality of obligation[1]), and substantive unconscionability where the contract limited the damages the employee could recover through arbitration.
The text I removed has significant problems with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Hopefully we should be able to rewrite this material so that the article can contain appropriate material on the enforceability of arbitration clauses. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
"it is presumed" is tagged "by whom". I think it's pretty clear in this context that "it is presumed by the court" but without an explicit source I wouldn't make the edit myself but rather suggest the edit. 24.16.205.24 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arbitration clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
