• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.53-77
• /
• 2012

Competence-competence refers to an arbitratorpower to determine whether he or she has jurisdiction to decide a controversy. Although arbitrators power to rule on their own jurisdiction is generally recognized throughout the world, in the United States, neither the courts nor legislative bodies have recognized its significance or the reasoning behind its widespread adoption. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is notorious among arbitration statues for its failure to incorporate competence-competence. When courts rule on an issue of competence-competence, it is referred to as a question of who decides the arbitrability of the case. In the United States, the use of competence-competence as a term of art is still limited to scholarly writings. The answer to the competence-competence inquiry is found in an interpretation of section 3 of the FAA which empowers the courts to decide arbitrability issues. The cases of the Supreme Court and most commentators interpreted sections 2 and 3 of the FAA as conferring issues of arbitrability on the federal courts, including the ability to rule on the validity and scope of the arbitral agreement. Traditionally, United States courts have denied the competence-competence to arbitral tribunal. Recently, however, they have confounded the rules by placing primary importance on the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has underscored the necessity of giving full effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement to arbitrate. The result of the Supreme Court's emphasis on contractualism in determining the issue of arbitrability is most evident in the Courtdecision in the First Options case. Under First Options, courts are to decide arbitrability issues unless there is a clear and unmistakable contractual assignment of these issues to the tribunal itself. The Court is appraised that it has attempted to compromise between contractual freedom in the arbitration setting and the rule of law that is necessary in a society that depends on the concept of ordered liberty. In the decision in Howsam, the Court clarified the definition of arbitrability by attempting to draw a clear line between questions of arbitrability that are to be decided by courts and those matters that bear on the allocation of decisions between courts and arbitrators but are not questions of arbitrability.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 관련 피해구제 접수건수는 1,252건으로 2016년 1,262건 대비 0.8% 감소하여 2013년 이후 처음으로 감소세를 나타냈다. 그리고 2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 분야의 피해구제 접수건 가운데 444건(35.4%)이 합의가 성립되었으며, 합의가 성립되지 않은 건 중에서 정보제공 상담 기타로 종결된 경우가 588건(47.0%)으로 가장 많았고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회에 조정 신청된 경우가 186건(14.9%)이었다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제와 분쟁해결을 위한 규정을 두고 있는 주요입법으로는 항공사업법, 소비자기본법 등이 있는데, 항공사업법에서 항공교통사업자의 피해구제절차와 처리계획의 수립 및 이행 그리고 피해구제 신청 접수 및 처리, 항공교통이용자 보호기준의 고시 등에 관하여 규정하고 있으며, 소비자기본법에서 소비자상담기구의 실치 운영, 한국소비자원의 피해구제, 소비자분쟁의 조정, 소비자분쟁해결기준의 제정 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 절차로는 항공교통사업자의 피해구제 접수 처리, 소비자상담센터의 상담 및 피해구제 접수 처리, 한국소비자원의 합의권고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정제도 등이 있다. 현행 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 및 분쟁조정 제도에는 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립 및 이행 의무의 면제, 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 운송 불이행 및 지연의 경우 면책 등에 대하여 문제점이 있고, 그리고 소비자기본법상 소비자분쟁조정의 절차진행 및 조정성립에 대하여 한계점이 있다. 따라서 항공서비스 소비자에 대한 적절한 피해구제와 원활한 분쟁조정을 위하여 관련 제도의 개선방안을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 관련 법규의 정비이다. 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립과 이행 의무의 면제규정이 수정되어야 할 것이다. 또한 항공서비스 소비자 보호와 피해구제에 관한 법 규정의 체계화와 전문성 제고를 위해 미국연방규칙 14 CFR 및 EU의 EC 261/2004 규칙과 유사한 별도 입법을 마련할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째 항공서비스 소비자 분쟁해결기준의 개선이다. 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 항공사업자의 운송 불이행 및 운송지연의 경우 면책사유의 발생 원인이 불가항력이었는지를 규명하여 면책여부를 판별하여야 하고, 상법 항공운송편 및 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 규정된 면책사유와 같이 수정되어야 하며, 대체편이 제공된 운송 불이행의 경우와 운송지연에 대하여 배상기준을 통일하는 것이 필요할 것이다. 셋째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 정보제공의 강화이다. 항공관련 정부기관 및 유관기관들은 항공사 및 공항과 협력하여 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 법규와 정책 등 다양한 정보를 항공교통이용자에게 보다 신속 명확하게 제공해야 할 것이다. 넷째 소비자분쟁조정의 효력 등에 관한 보완이다. 분쟁조정에 대한 수락 의사표시가 없을 경우 수락한 것으로 보는 것은 부당하므로 이의신청제도를 추가할 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 소비자분쟁조정위원회 이외 다른 분쟁조정기구에 중복으로 분쟁해결을 신청한 경우 피해구제 대상에서 제외하고 있으나 당사자가 조정기관을 선택할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 소비자분쟁이 조정을 통하여 효율적으로 해결될 수 있도록 조정성립률을 높일 수 있는 제도적 방안을 강구할 필요가 있을 것이다. 다섯째 항공서비스 소비자 중재제도의 도입이다. 소비자분쟁 조정제도의 한계점을 보완할 수 있는 방안으로 소비자 중재제도를 도입하되, 소비자기본법 상 중재 도입안과 중재법 상 소비자중재 도입안이 있는데, 후자의 방안이 적합할 것으로 생각된다. 결론적으로, 정책과제로서 항공서비스 소비자의 피해 예방 및 구제를 강화하는 법 제도를 마련하고, 항공서비스 선진화를 위한 소비자 중심의 정책을 수립 추진해야 할 것이다.