Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Review of U.S. Courts' Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability Doctrine Regarding Mandatory Arbitration Agreement in the Nursing Home Contracts

미국 요양원 입소계약상의 강제적 중재 조항에 관한 미국 법원의 절차적, 실체적 비양심성 법리 고찰

  • 신승남 (이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2021.01.28
  • Accepted : 2021.03.01
  • Published : 2021.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

If aggrieving consumers or employees cannot prove both substantive and procedural unconscionability, many U.S. state courts will enforce arbitration agreements. Additionally, U.S. courts weigh a variety of factors to determine whether an arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable. For example, U.S. courts have considered one or a combination of the following factors: (1) the fairness of contractual terms; (2) the severity of contractual terms' deviation from prevailing standards, customs, or practices within a particular industry; (3) the reasonableness of goods-and-services contract prices; (4) the commercial reasonableness of the contract terms; (5) the purpose and effect of the terms and (6) "the allocation of risks between the parties." Further, procedural unconscionability characterized by surprise or lack of knowledge focuses on terms that are deceptively hidden in a mass of contract language, the object of another concealment, or imposed in the circumstances involving haste or high-pressure tactics so that they are not likely to be read or understood. This unconscionability doctrine can be applied to a situation where an alcoholic dementia-afflicted older adult is admitted to a nursing home. At that time, because she had alcoholic dementia, which precluded her reading, comprehending, writing, negotiating, or signing of any legal document, her son, who did not understand the adhesion contract, signed the standardized residential contract and the arbitration agreement.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-과제번호) (NRF-2020S1A5B8100993)

References

  1. 공정거래위원회 2003. 01. 02. 의결 2002약제3262.
  2. 공정거래위원회 2010. 02. 25. 의결 2010약관0478.
  3. 신승남, "정신적 무능력자가 체결한 중재약정에 관한 미국 연방법원의 분리가능성 법리의 분석", 「중재연구」 제30권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2020.
  4. 하충룡, "소비자중재합의의 미국계약법상 항변", 「중재연구」 제20권 제2호, 한국중재학회, 2010.
  5. Barnett, Megan, "There Is Still Hope For The Little Guy: Unconscionability Is Still A Defense Against Arbitration Clauses Despite AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion," 33 Whittier L. Rev. Vol. 33, 2012.
  6. Broome, Stephen A., "An Unconscionable Application of the Unconscionability Doctrine: How The California Courts Are Circumventing The Federal Arbitration Act," Hastings Business Law Journal, Vol.3, 2006.
  7. Bulgarella, Wesley, "A Better Forum For All: Addressing The Value of Arbitration Clauses In Nursing Home Contracts," Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 86, 2017.
  8. Charters, Dustin, "Uphill Battle or Insurmountable Peak? The Pursuit to Uphold Provisions within Arbitration Agreements," Idaho Law Review, Vol. 47, 2011.
  9. Korn, David and Rosenberg, David, "Concepcion's Pro-Defendant Biasing of The Arbitration Process: The Class Counsel Solution," University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 46, 2013.
  10. Daisy Maxey, "Public" Arbitration? Brokers Balk--Given Druthers, Wall Street Says System Was Fine; Anything But the Courts," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2010.
  11. Moses, Margaret L., "Privatized 'Justice'," Loy. U. Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 36, 2005.
  12. Pomerance, Benjamin, "Arbitration Over Accountability? The State of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Nursing Home Admission Contracts," Florida Coastal Law Review, Vol. 16, 2015.
  13. Randall, Susan, "Judicial Attitudes Toward Arbitration and the Resurgence of Unconscionability," Buff. Law Review, Vol. 52, 2004.
  14. Rice, Willy E., "Courts Gone 'Irrationally Biased' in Favor of the Federal Arbitration Act? -- Enforcing Arbitration Provisions in Standardized Application Forms and Marginalizing Consumer-Protection, Antidiscrimination, and States' Contract Laws: A 1925-2014 Legal and Empirical Analysis," Wm. & Mary Bus. Law Review, Vol.6, 2015.
  15. Smith, Bradley A., "Vanity of Vanities: National Popular Vote and the Electoral College," Election Law Journal, Vol. 6, 2010.
  16. Stark, Kirk J., "Rich States, Poor States: Assessing the Design and Effect of A U.S. Fiscal Equalization Regime," Tax L. Review, Vol. 62, 2010.
  17. Viswanathan, Madhubalan and Rosa, Anton & Ruth, Julie A., "Emerging Lessons For Multinational Companies, Understanding the Needs of Poorer Consumers Can Be Profitable and Socially Responsible," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008.
  18. Zimmerman, James, "Restrictions On Forum-Selection Clauses In Franchise Agreements and The Federal Arbitration Act: Is State Law Preempted?," Vand. Law Review, Vol.51, 1998..
  19. ACORN v. Household Int'l, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
  20. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 724 S.E.2d 250, 272 (W. Va. 2011).
  21. Clark v. Renaissance West L.L.C., 307 P.3d 77, 81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
  22. Colmar, Ltd. v. Fremantlemedia North America, Inc., 801 N.E.2d 1017, 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
  23. Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
  24. Hawkins v. Superior Court, 152 Cal.Rptr. 491, 493 (1979).
  25. High v. Capital Senior Living Props., 594 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
  26. Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 936 (4th Cir.1999).
  27. In re Dan Ledet and Living Centers of Texas, Inc., No. 04-04-00411, 2004 WL 2945699 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).
  28. Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 640 F.Supp. 2d 1124, 1134 (D. Ariz. 2009).
  29. Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 45 P.3d 594, 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
  30. Moore v. Conliffe, 871 P.2d 204, 225 -226 (Cal. 1994) (Baxter, J. dissenting).
  31. Owens v. Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc., 890 So.2d 983 (Als.2004).
  32. Phillips, 179 F. Supp. 2d at 847 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
  33. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 304 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2002).
  34. Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So. 2d 59, 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).
  35. Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 170 F.3d 1, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1999).
  36. Ruppelt v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC, 293 P.3d 902, 907-08 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012).
  37. Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2011).
  38. Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 19, 24 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
  39. Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 311 P.3d 184, 203, 205, 211 (Cal. 2013).
  40. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 714 N.W.2d 155, 174 (Wis. 2006).