Yesterday the Supreme Court rejected the view that parties to an arbitration agreement, at least under the Federal Arbitration Act, can agree to expanded judicial review of the arbitrator’s award. See Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2008) (hat tip: SCOTUSblog).
I’ve put a more detailed write-up at the 100 Feet Up wiki.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed
See also: (list is automatically generated)
- The judicial system should compete with consumer arbitration, not displace it: A response to Richard Alderman
- Startup company uses flawed software-development contract with outside consultant, ends up having to go to court to stay alive
- Supreme Court’s Bilski decision leaves door ajar for patenting at least some business methods
- A silver lining for patent challengers after Supreme Court’s Microsoft v. i4i ruling
Contract review: A final checklist
