well take a simple case. divorce proceedings are messy, with this in mind when you met your next great love, suppose that you wanted some kind of simple prenup with them, given that you and they are both great partner and very cooperative. if you did think it a good idea to sign a prenup, you wouldn't both agree to mediation/arbitration below any explicit terms about what you both intended going into it? It seems cheap and a whole lot better than the all or nothing of a full court proceeding being necessary in case of any disagreement - don't you think?

I mean that this is what I understood the purpose of arbitration to be. for both parties to say, "fine, let's go to a neutral third party and we'll agree to whatever they say" versus a full lawsuit.

Within your comment I don't see any positive aspect or defense of arbitration at all -- it seems like for you it is the same as "kangaroo court" and, for example, if you yourself had an arbitration clause in a prenuptual agreement it would be the same as a kangaroo court clause for you?

I guess then that I am not seeing the whole purpose of arbitration anywhere in your comment.

You seem like you might have this backwards. This isn't a clause creating the option of arbitration in the face of an otherwise guaranteed trip to court - you already have that option. This is a clause removing the option of going to court.

Yes, costs can be kept down by requiring things stay out of court. This is at the expense of some of the normal guarantees you can expect from our court system.

If that's okay for you, and you're in an equal bargaining position with the other party, go wild. You're not in an equal bargaining position with the banking industry when a majority of banks start adding the clause to their T&C.

aren't there limits on the enforceability of arbitration? meaning if people are REALLY unhappy with the arbitrated decision, can't they sue anyway?

what I mean is, isn't arbitration in a sense always "voluntary", because you can always sue after, if you really don't like it? Thanks.

The article only mentions it once, but this is "binding arbitration." "Binding" as in both parties are bound by the decision and neither has any further recourse.

but it says here: (I googled the phrase without quotes "can you sue after binding arbitration")

http://www.arbitration.com/articles/canapartystillsueafterbi...

>A decision on a binding arbitration cannot be appealed or overturned unless there are rare circumstances present (fraud, bias or other inappropriate actions on the part of the arbitration attorney). After the decision is rendered, the case is over.

The things that are the main worry here - bias - would be explicit grounds for throwing out binding arbitration. So I still don't follow how "binding arbitration" means "whatever the company wants, and you're SOL on your side."

It would be a clear case of bias if that were the case, and based on what I've just read would allow you recourse to a normal lawsuit...?

On the other hand, why are the decisions of unbiased arbitration worrysome? I don't understand what the problem people have with it is, and so far it hasn't been expressed clearly to me. Maybe you can help, jpallas?

Just trying to understand here. THanks

Prenuptial agreements may not be the best example for your argument. Ask any divorce lawyer, and you'll learn that they're basically a legal fiction used to fool the rich that they can safely marry the poor.

I'm not arguing with you, just clarifying: my example was marrying an equal partner, without marked difference in richness and probably with some property on either side already -- surely you don't agree that even when parties are very amicable they cannot follow a simple plain-word prenup, or that nobody has used arbitration or mediation successfully to resolve minor disputes when they're otherwise trying to cooperate?

I'd be shocked at the latter but, if that is your knowledge then I'll take it. Are you basically saying that nobody has ever used arbitration the way it's written on the tin? (a low-cost way to have a third party mediate in case of minor disagreement?)

why does arbitration even exist in your opinion? (both in theory and practice).

someone's been downvoting me, but I'm just asking open-ended questions. I don't have a strong preconception myself. it's clear that in the rest of this article discussion thread, people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants." is this your experience too? (in such strong terms?)

> why does arbitration even exist in your opinion?

It's a scam that was invented to keep the inventor out of the trouble they knew their shitty actions would cause for them.

You don't need a contract for voluntary arbitration, you only need it to force someone into it when it's not in their best interests.

> people are taking "arbitration" to mean "whatever the company wants."

The company is the party with the lawyers, and which forces the clause into the contracts. Of course they feel it benefits them.

I highly doubt they're wrong...

aren't lawyers usually not allowed at arbitration? (isn't that part of the whole point)?

You may be thinking of small claims courts, where some states don't allow lawyers. Arbitration follows whatever rules the arbitration organization chooses.

jpallas - okay - you're replying in two child comments, I've asked you followup questions above.