TexasScholarWorks
    • Login
    • Submit
    View Item 
    •   Repository Home
    • UT Communities
    • The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business
    • KBH Energy Center Research and Publications
    • View Item
    • Repository Home
    • UT Communities
    • The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business
    • KBH Energy Center Research and Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Arbitral Power and the Limits of Contract: The New Trilogy

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    2011_01_01_Arbitral_Power_Limits.pdf (1.456Mb)
    Date
    2011-01-01
    Author
    Rau, Alan S.
    Share
     Facebook
     Twitter
     LinkedIn
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Department
    The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business
    Description
    An excerpt from the introductory paragraphs of the article: “The American law of arbitration has for some reason been replete with what we have become accustomed to call ‘trilogies’—and the last two terms of the U.S. Supreme Court have curiously continued that pattern. Once again the Court has handed us three leading cases on closely related themes—and these decisions have turned out in fact to be in many ways the most interesting of the lot [referring to Stolt-Nielsen, Rent-A-Center, and Conception]. All three amount to extended riffs on the Question of Questions, the scope of arbitral power: And so the Court has continued to dip its finger into this rich mixture—compounded of notions of judicial review, ‘arbitrability,’ ‘separability,’ competence/compétence, and the preemption of state law—all of our hard-earned lore and learning is there. Undoubtedly for the moment the greatest salience will be with respect to arbitration clauses in contracts of adhesion entered into by consumers and employees—and yet this recent jurisprudence has the potential of sweeping far more broadly. It seems reasonably clear that these cases will continue to generate endless discussion. Things now seem curiously muddled: If our law of arbitration now no longer seems to have any clear unifying theme, any fil conducteur, this suggests that private adjudication—rather than presenting us as it once did with a coherent and self-contained body of doctrine—has become a hostage to a game played out on a larger stage, a pawn of wider, systemic “political” concerns. And so—yet another untoward result — these cases will require the reevaluation of what seemed, for a while, to constitute comfortably settled certainties. Here is at least one step in that direction.”
    Subject
    arbitration
    AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception
    Inc. v. Jackson
    Rent-A-Center
    Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
    Supreme Court
    West
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/2152/40345
    Collections
    • KBH Energy Center Research and Publications

    University of Texas at Austin Libraries
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • instagram
    • youtube
    • CONTACT US
    • MAPS & DIRECTIONS
    • JOB OPPORTUNITIES
    • UT Austin Home
    • Emergency Information
    • Site Policies
    • Web Accessibility Policy
    • Web Privacy Policy
    • Adobe Reader
    Subscribe to our NewsletterGive to the Libraries

    © The University of Texas at Austin

     

     

    Browse

    Entire RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsDate IssuedAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDepartmentsThis CollectionDate IssuedAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDepartments

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Information

    About Contact Policies Getting Started Glossary Help FAQs

    University of Texas at Austin Libraries
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • instagram
    • youtube
    • CONTACT US
    • MAPS & DIRECTIONS
    • JOB OPPORTUNITIES
    • UT Austin Home
    • Emergency Information
    • Site Policies
    • Web Accessibility Policy
    • Web Privacy Policy
    • Adobe Reader
    Subscribe to our NewsletterGive to the Libraries

    © The University of Texas at Austin