Understanding Remedy-Stripping Arbitration Clauses: Validity, Arbitrability, and Preclusion Principles

57 Pages Posted: 19 May 2016

See all articles by David S. Schwartz

David S. Schwartz

University of Wisconsin Law School

Date Written: May 17, 2016

Abstract

Overzealous adhesion contract drafters frequently try to deprive adhering parties of their remedies by grafting remedy-stripping provisions onto their arbitration clauses. Courts have not sufficiently analyzed such remedy-stripping clauses or attempted to craft a coherent and uniform approach to them. To date, courts have either held the entire arbitration clause unconscionable and therefore unenforceable; severed the offending remedy-stripping terms, to enforce a "cleaned up" arbitration clause without remedy limitations; or enforced the remedy limitations while holding that arbitration will proceed only on those claims for which the arbitrator is authorized to award remedies. More recently, drafters of remedy-striping arbitration clauses have argued that the FAA's purported mandate that arbitration clauses must be enforceable "as written" preempts state contract doctrines that would deny enforcement to remedy-stripping clauses. If there is any serious possibility of judicial acceptance of this argument, it is crucial to have worked through the issue of the preclusive effect of an arbitration conducted under such an agreement. I argue that, although proper understanding of preclusion principles places the validity of remedy-stripping clauses in a different light, courts are still justified in striking remedy-stripping clauses in their entirety as unconscionable or against public policy. I argue that courts should give the prior arbitration in such circumstances the narrowest preclusive scope that is consistent with established preclusion principles. Finally, I show how taking preclusion principles into account can also resolve the special remedy-stripping problem of class actions.

Keywords: employee, consumer, arbitration, compelled arbitration, mandatory arbitration, pre-dispute arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, alternative dispute resolution, ADR, claim preclusion, issue preclusion, res judicata, collateral estoppel, remedies, waiver, exculpatory clause, class action

undefined

JEL Classification: K41

Suggested Citation

Schwartz, David S., Understanding Remedy-Stripping Arbitration Clauses: Validity, Arbitrability, and Preclusion Principles (May 17, 2016). University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 38, 2003, Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1381, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2781101 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2781101

David S. Schwartz (Contact Author)

University of Wisconsin Law School ( email )

975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
United States

0 References

    0 Citations

      Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

      Paper statistics

      Downloads
      160
      Abstract Views
      1,200
      Rank
      384,113
      PlumX Metrics
      Plum Print visual indicator of research metrics
      • Citations
        • Citation Indexes: 1
        • Policy Citations: 1
      • Usage
        • Abstract Views: 1193
        • Downloads: 160
      • Captures
        • Readers: 2
      see details