08 avr Bank Arbitration Agreements
But opponents of these clauses say that the statistics are misleading, because consumers benefit from a discharge only in 9% of disputes that went to arbitration, while companies have succeeded in 93% of their claims or counter-claims in arbitration proceedings. Oxford and Sutter`s health plans made an arbitration decision that silenced the parties` intention to allow class actions in arbitration proceedings. On the basis of previous Supreme Court cases, the arbitrator should not have used that silence to establish that the parties accepted a class action in arbitration. But he did. The Supreme Court refused to reverse the arbitrator`s judgment because there was no question of questioning the arbitrator`s interpretation of the contract. « If I want to go to Discover, I have to take this case on my own, » said Myriam Gilles, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York, who studied arbitration. By blocking customers` legal rights through a compromise clause, banks can close their way to legal proceedings that could challenge their fees, collection and other practices. Credit unions – few of them have large credit card companies – rarely have arbitration clauses for their cards or other types of services. The parties can indicate the number of arbitrators in the arbitration clause or have it determined according to the applicable rules as soon as a dispute has arisen. As a general rule, an arbitration procedure is heard by one or three arbitrators. Arbitration will be less costly and less delayed if the parties take on a single arbitrator. It is easier to organize meetings and hearings, a single arbitrator will not need to spend time with other arbitrators to make a decision and, generally speaking, arbitrators` fees for a single arbitrator arbitration will likely cost about half of the arbitration fee for an arbitration by three arbitrators.
The disadvantage of a single arbitrator is that the likelihood of errors in the decision is higher, since only one person renders the award. In an international dispute, the most common procedure for appointing an arbitration tribunal of three arbitrators should be provided. If the tribunal is to be composed of three arbitrators, the procedure generally adopted is to appoint an arbitrator by each party and to appoint a third « neutral » arbitrator (usually the arbitrator or the chair) either by mutual agreement between the two arbitrators appointed by the party or by mutual agreement between the parties. The advantage is that each party has a greater sense of investment in arbitration, since each party has been able to appoint an arbitrator of its choice to hear its case. It also ensures that at least one arbitrator is familiar with the national or legal culture of the country in which the party concerned is based. If you opt for arbitration because you want your disputes to be resolved by someone in the same sector or who has particular expertise, it is a good idea to specify this in the arbitration agreement.