Last year, the US Supreme Court decided Hall Street Associates. In this case, the parties entered into a commercial lease that included an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision permitted a reviewing court to vacate the decision of the arbitrator on grounds not included within the Federal Arbitration Act. This article argues that the Hall Street Associates opinion has displaced the public policy exception in the context of enforcing arbitration awards, and that displacement offends traditional notions of Lockean social contract theory. Part II of this article discusses the historical roots of arbitration and the courts' traditional aversion to enforcement of arbitration awards. Part III then discusses the creation of the public policy exception, first examining its roots in Lockean social contract theory and then discussing its subsequent development in the arbitration context by the Supreme Court's decisions in Hurd and Grace. Part IV discusses Hall Street Associates, providing a brief historical background of the case and outlining the Court's strict plain-meaning reasoning.
THE CRUMBLED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ARBITRATION AWARDS: HALL Jonathan A Marcantel Fordham Jo
Pages to are hidden for
"THE CRUMBLED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ARBITRATION AWARDS: HALL STREET ASSOCIATES AND THE WANING PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION"Please download to view full document