If you are still applying to law school, you might be an idiot. The title of this Above the Law article made me laugh out loud. Law schools have been taking a beating in the press lately as people are questioning the value of a law degree in today’s business world. The Above the Law piece discusses a recent Atlantic article about the recent drop in the number of law school applicants with high entrance exam scores and the much lower drop in applicants with low scores. Hat tip to Bradley Clark who tweets under the handle @BradleyBClark and blogs at the Texas Law Blog.
[click to continue…]
The Supreme Court once again affirmed federal policy favoring arbitration this week as it reversed the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown.
The state high court had held unenforceable all predispute arbitration agreements that apply to claims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes, based on West Virginia’s public policy. But the Supreme Court held that the public policy of a state is not a sufficient basis for refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court wasn’t subtle in disagreeing with the lower court’s decision:
[click to continue…]
The Second Circuit struck down an arbitration provision in an American Express Card Acceptance Agreement, which contained a class action waiver, for the third time Wednesday. I found the case yesterday via a post on Howard Ullman’s My Distribution Law blog.
Probably no case has been more affected by the Supreme Court’s recent arbitration decisions, as the case was sent back down to the appeals court after the Supreme Court’s April 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds and it was revisited again after the Supreme Court’s April 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
[click to continue…]
The scope of an arbitration agreement can be expanded by positions taken by the parties in arbitration proceedings.
Wells Fargo brought claims against WMR e-PIN and other respondents, alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The claims arose out of a software licensing agreement and other contracts which contained binding arbitration provisions.
[click to continue…]
The word “or” can cause confusion in a contract that can be expensive to resolve when the assistance of lawyers and federal judges is required. Diligent drafters should be on the lookout for potential ambiguity in order to avoid unnecessary expense and litigation. Anderson v. Hess Corp. is a case in point.
The Andersons, along with the owners of several parcels of land that adjoin the Andersons’ land, were parties to an oil lease with Hess Corporation. The lease automatically renewed at the end of its term if Hess Corporation was then conducting “drilling or reworking operations.”
[click to continue…]
The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its favor of arbitration yesterday in one of its first decisions of the year. InCompuCredit v. Greenwood, the high court once again reversed the Ninth Circuit in an arbitration case.
You might recall that the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit last April in its much discussed AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision. In that case the Supreme Court overturned California’s Discover Bank rule, which had rendered class arbitration waivers in consumer adhesion contracts all but unenforceable in California. AT&T Mobility effectively gives companies a way to opt out of class arbitrations altogether, albeit — unless the ruling is broadened in future cases — at the cost of providing individual consumers a more effective remedy in arbitration than they would likely have via class action. See my discussion of the opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: Is Class Arbitration Dead?
[click to continue…]
Becwood, a Minnesota-based distributor, contracted with Dingxi, a Chinese supplier, to purchase a large amount of organic Kosher inulin. Becwood planned to sell the inulin to Stoneyfield Farm, Inc. for use in yogurt products. Dingxi shipped the product in four separate shipments. Becwood paid for the first shipment in full before its arrival, but then rejected all four shipments claiming that the product was contaminated with mold.
Dingxi recalled the third and fourth shipments before they reached their destination ports and sued in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for breach of contract and misrepresentation seeking to recover the full price for shipments two, three, and four. [click to continue…]
The U.S. Supreme court issued its opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion yesterday. The Court held that California’s Discover Bank rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Discover Bank rule states that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is unconscionable and should not be enforced
- when it is found in a consumer contract of adhesion
- in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, [click to continue…]
