• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.111-132
• /
• 2014

Recently, there have been discussions about the necessity of consumer arbitration such as ADR. The debate has progressed, because this area of arbitration has expanded into the press and medical fields. However, there is not an act for regulating consumer arbitration in South Korea. Thus, this issue has been deliberated at UNCITRAL Working Group III. The core issue of this deliberation is the validity of consumer arbitration. Especially if a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is contracted online, it progresses by using standardized terms; therefore it is possible that the Standardized Terms Regulating Act judges the relevant terms. This thesis consists of the following: First, concepts and categories of arbitration agreements. These include arbitration agreement, pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and arbitration agreement through standardized terms. Second, the validity of the above agreements will be discussed. There are three positions concerning their validity: affirmative as de lege ferenda, negative, and restrictively negative. Similar discussions concerning German law and cases would be helpful to specify and compare the issue. When a consumer arbitration agreement is contracted through standardized terms, it is necessary that the required formality of the agreement has been satisfied, before the effect of the agreement may be regulated by the German Civil Code.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.151-171
• /
• 2010

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2011

This paper investigates on the legal doctrine of "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" (VKI Doctrine). The main points that were discussed include the history of the VKI doctrine and the US courts' attitudes toward the doctrine. It was also discussed how the VKI doctrine influenced the protection of consumer who agreed to arbitrate with businesses. The US courts' attitudes have shown to be split in application of the VKI doctrine to disputes in the enforceability of arbitration agreement between the consumers and the businesses. In order for the arbitration agreement to be invalidated, the state legislature cannot enact law that are directly targeted toward the validity of arbitration agreement. Rather the contract law in each of the state should be applied to the evaluation of the validity of an arbitration agreement. As the more and more consumers become familiar with the arbitration, the need for the VKI doctrine to protect the individual consumers in arbitration is expected to be diminished in future disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.61-80
• /
• 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractuality and related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses. Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the issue of party autonomy in arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently from general contracts because its legal characteristics are not purely contractual by nature. For example, some legal scholars insist that an arbitration contract is more about an agreement on a process of dispute resolution than a creation of rights and obligations to avoid litigation. Party autonomy was discussed in diverse legal perspectives including contract of adhesion, VKI principle, and separability of arbitration clause. These three legal perspectives are discussed to set the legal relationship between party autonomy and protection of consumers in consumer arbitration. In addition, it was discussed how legal defects in the formation of an arbitration contract can influence the party autonomy. The legal defects that were discussed to analyze the relationship between arbitration agreement and party autonomy included misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, and undue influence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2018

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration's restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.73-86
• /
• 2011

Today's arbitrations see themselves as the most effective scheme for dispute resolution in a variety of transactional context. While some kind of ADR system was already introduced in Korea as of 2007 with revision of the Consumer Basic Law, consumers' needs in dispute resolution remain unmet. Recently one consumer arbitration case divides the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the result of the case is expected to affect tens of millions of arbitration agreements in the States which has the most developed scheme in consumer arbitrations. While Arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts are not automatically held to be substantively unconscionable, Class action waivers are one of the most controversial issues in consumer arbitration. In this study, with the theoretical background of consumer arbitrations general, and contractual defenses against adhesive contracts, reviewed are U.S. federal courts' attitudes toward certain consumer arbitration agreements including the class arbitration waiver. Moreover, several issues in AT&T case are examined for practical implications for consumer dispute resolution. All of these are expected to initiate further research to find some guidelines for the proper status and operation of consumer arbitration here in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.207-239
• /
• 2002

The redemption system for consumer's claim is intended to deal with the conflicts between consumers and firms in their transaction of goods and service ensuring consumer's basic right. In general, the redemption system for consumer's claim requires promptness of redemption, free charge of claim procedure for consumers and constructive response of firms. However, the current redemption system in Korea has some limitations in its authority in the sense that it has only the right for mediation of consultation and agreement and thus the involved consumer should forfeit his/her claim or should go to legal suit which requires high cost and time when the mediation work is failed between two parties. As it is shown in result of survey on empirical cases produced by the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee in Consumer Protection Board of Korea in 2001, the 20.3％ of total claims have failed to reach final mediation, while the BBB case in the U. S. has recorded 19％ of arbitration success after its failure in mediation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended for Korea to augment current. arbitration system toward assuring firm's cost liability, the principle of quick procedure through agreement on arbitration upon consumer's request. It is thus prerequisite for firms to be armed with the concrete entrepreneurship of responsibility on cost liability. In conclusion, we suggest restructuring of currently existing institution, rather than establishing new one through substantial augmenting the role of Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee In Consumer Protection Board of Korea and enlarging its business criteria of The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board by progressive development of the consumer protection program through amendment of current law for consumer protection.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.