Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Asymmetry and Invalid Arbitration Clauses
In the world of franchising, mandatory arbitration contract provisions have become de rigueur. In principle, agreements to arbitrate favor neither party; as a practical matter, however, franchisors and franchisees have quickly learned about the real-life advantages and disadvantages of including an arbitration clause in a franchise contract. Generally, these clauses are included in franchise contracts because they tend to favor the franchisor ' the party that, in most cases, usually has the bargaining power to impose terms and conditions on the weaker party, the franchisee. There are very few, if any, reported cases in which a franchisee challenging the validity of an arbitration clause has been shown to have requested or demanded that an arbitration clause be included in the franchise agreement.
In the wake of the recent blizzard of U.S. Supreme Court decisions unequivocally solicitous of arbitration clauses, courts have generally been loath to invalidate arbitration agreements between private parties. Indeed, in most cases, guided by the principle of “rigorous enforcement,” courts faced with mandatory arbitration provisions generally do little more than act as rubber stamps, sending case after case directly to arbitration. To most courts, the mere existence of a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract evinces an intent by the parties (who were often presumed to be sophisticated parties with bargaining power) to arbitrate; the terms in the franchise agreement are held to be conclusive as the final, fully integrated expression of the parties' intent. Although the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) itself provides exceptions to the policy of enforcement, few courts historically have seriously considered invalidating an agreement to arbitrate. Against this strong sentiment, a franchisee seeking to litigate his or her case in court in the face of a mandatory arbitration clause has historically had little hope.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.