THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW (무역상무연구)

The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law (한국무역상무학회)
권호 표지

The Validity of Consumer Arbitration Agreement - Focusing on U.S. Cases -

소비자 중재합의의 유효성 - 미국판례를 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2018.01.31
  • Accepted : 2018.02.21
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. 김광수, "국재소비자분쟁의 해결방안", 계간중재, 대한상사중재원, 2008 봄.
  2. 김상일, "미국의 소비자중재에 관한 판례의 최근 동향", 비교사법 제9권 제3호, 한국비교사법학회, 2002.
  3. 김석철, "소비자피해구제 실태분석을 통한 소비자 중재제도 도입방안 연구", 중재연구 제12권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2002.
  4. 강용찬.박원형, "소비자중재합의의 효력에 관한 미국법원의 태도와 함의", 중재연구 제21권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2012.
  5. 석광현, "해외직접구매에서 발생하는 분쟁과 소비자의 보호", 서울대학교 법학 제57권 제3호, 서울대학교 법학연구소, 2016.
  6. 정선주, "소비자중재에서 소비자보호의 문제", 서울대학교 법학 제49권 제1호, 서울대학교 법학연구소, 2008.
  7. 하충룡, "소비자 중재합의의 효력에 관한 미국법원의 태도와 함의", 중재연구 제22권 제3호, 한국중재학회, 2012.
  8. 중재법 일부개정법률안 조문별 개정이유서.
  9. Rude v. NUCO Edn. Corp., 2011 WL 6931516.
  10. ABM Farms Inc. v. Woods, 81 Ohio St. 3d 498, 692 N.E.2d 574 (1998).
  11. Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St. 3d 352, 884 N.E.2d 12, 2008-Ohio-938.
  12. Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150, 809 N.E.2d 1161, 2004-Ohio-829.
  13. Porpora v. Gatliff Bldg. Co., 160 Ohio App.3d 843, 828 N.E.2d 1081, 2005-Ohio-2410.
  14. Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 Ohio St.3d 63, 908 N.E.2d 408, 2009-Ohio-2054.
  15. Brunke v. Ohio State Home Servs. Inc., 9th Dist. No. 08CA009320, 2008-Ohio-5394.
  16. Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet Inc., 8th Dist. No. 86990, 86991, 2006-Ohio-4500.
  17. Harding v. Midsouth Bank N. A. 2012 WL 4753414, 12-CV-1562.
  18. Harvey v. Joyce, 199 F.3d 790, 795 (5th Cir. 2000).
  19. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigational Co., 363 U.S. 574, 583, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960).
  20. Moss H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983).
  21. Rojas v. TK Communications, Inc., 87 F.3d 745, 747 (5th Cir.1996).
  22. Bixler v. Next Financial Group, Inc., 858 F.Supp.2d 1136 (2012).
  23. Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 901 F.Supp.2d 1147 (2012).
  24. The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. $\S$1 et seq.
  25. Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1104 n.11(9 Cir. 2006).
  26. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AminalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 130 S.Ct. 1758 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010).
  27. Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 4 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 1993).
  28. Amisil Holdings Ltd. v. Clarium Capital Mgmt. LLC, 622 F.Supp.2d 825, 830 (N.D.Cal.2007).
  29. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 778 (2d Cir.1995).
  30. Fujian Pacific Elec. Co. v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. C04-3126 XIHP, 2004 WL 2645974 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 19, 2004).
  31. Discover Bank Rule(Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148, 30 Cal. Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100 (2005)).
  32. Gatton V. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal. App.4th 571, 581, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 (2007)
  33. Amendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., 24 Cal.4th 83, 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (2000).
  34. Higgs v. Automotive Warranty Corp. of America, 134 Fed. Appx. 828, 831 (6th Cir. 2005).
  35. Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal. App.4th 77, 89, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 (2003).
  36. Parada v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1584-85, 98 Cal.Rpyr.3d 743 (2009).
  37. English v. Cornwell Quality Tools Co., Inc., 2005 WL 3556281.
  38. Neubrander v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 308, 311-312, 610 N.E.2d 1089.
  39. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph (2000), 531 U.S. 79, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373.
  40. Popora v. Gatliff Building Co., 160 Ohio App.3d 843, 828 N.E.2d 1081, 2005-Ohio-2410.
  41. Garcia v. Wayne Homes, L.L.C., 2d Dist. No.2001 CA 53, 2002-Ohio-1884.
  42. Hook v. Hook (1982), 69 Ohio St.2D 234, 238, 431 N.E.2d. 667.