지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractualityand related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses.
Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (33)
참고문헌 신청
/ 1930 / Patton v. U.S, 281 U.S. 276
/ 1982 / A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., 135 Cal.App.3d 473
/ 1985 / Standard Coffee Service Co. v. Babin, 472 So. 2d at 124, 127
/ 1985 / U.S. v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, (Cal. 9th circuit, 1985)
/ 1991 / Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1140 C.A.9 (Cal.)
/ 1982 / A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., 135 Cal.App.3d 473
/ 1985 / Standard Coffee Service Co. v. Babin, 472 So. 2d at 124, 127
/ 1985 / U.S. v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, (Cal. 9th circuit, 1985)
/ 1991 / Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1140 C.A.9 (Cal.)
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0