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.