• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 1994

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.83-105
• /
• 2021

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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• The Inventors News
• /
• no.51
• /
• pp.1-16
• /
• 2006

함께 즐기는 '여성 발명인 축제'열린다/이 가을을 여성 발명의 계절로/빠진 영구치, 임플란트 기술로 대신한다/국내 의약품 특허출원 외국 기업이 주도/웰빙 붐 타고 기능성 베개 출원 늘어나/토양오염 복원기술, 관심 높아져/기업 CI교체 따른 상표출원 급증/여성경제단체, 오세훈 서울 시장 초청 간담회 가져/'2006대한민국 발명특허대전' 개최/특허청, 중소기업 특허경영 지원단 발족/한국특허문헌, WIPO로 전세계 서비스 실시/APEC 여성지도자네트워크 회의 개최/'2006 특허기술 사업화 성공사례발표회'/세계최초 신개념 CTF기술 상용화/특허청, 제4회 발명 장학생 선발/김치, 러시아 모스크바에 진출한다/고속 주행 틸팅열차 특허로 인정/현직 공무원, 다양한 발명품으로 특허와 되다/자신만의 'TV채널' 선택 가능하다/전지산업, 이온성 액체 관련 특허로 안전하게/명확한 의견 제출로 효율적인 심판 진행/치매예방물질 2배인 김치 개발됐다/한국과학기술연구원 논문 특허심의제도 도입/'한국 오시면 KISS로 맞이합니다'/삼성전자, 중국 특허 마쓰시타 아성 깨다/싱가포르 수출 인큐베이터로 중소기업 해외시장 공략/특허청, 영남대와 지식재산역량 강화 위한 약정 체결/깎는 횟수 줄인 잔디, 세계최초 개발/순창군, 웰빙 고추장 특허출원/역사 속의 발명품/하루 10분 발명교실/특허Q&A/케이제이알텍(주)문승자 대표/한.일 변리사회 업무협정체결 25주년 기념식 개최/중소기업청, 하반기 18조원 신용보증 공급 계획/'2006 대만 국제발명품 전시회'서 한국 참가자 수상/'불났을 때' 긴급 대피 요령은?/아이디어 착상 및 발명 기법/창의성과 도전정신이 성공한 사업가 만든다/사탕을 탄생시킨 사람들/'휴대폰 특허료 1.3억불 내라' 중재 결정/'신발깔창 휴대폰 충전기'/휴대폰으로 광고 받고 무료 문자 이용 가능/아파트 저작권.특허 열풍 거세게 불어/'골다공증 예방 요구르트' 나왔다/갈증 느끼지 않아도 '물' 자주 마셔라/10월 '지재권 및 여성발명 창의교실' 개최안내/한국여성발명협회 회원사 발명품 가이드/함씨네토종콩종합식품, 특선 수상/