An article entitled “Withstanding Unconscionability Attacks Upon Arbitration Provisions” was recently published in the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia 2014 Notebook of Articles.
The eleven page document prepared by Martin & Seibert’s Susan Snowden, Shareholder, and Jason S. Murphy, Associate, explores the practical approaches to withstanding unconscionability attacks upon arbitration provisions in the State of West Virginia. Recently, state and federal courts in West Virginia have issued opinions on the enforceability of arbitration provisions in various types of contracts, to include agreements for sales and services.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was first enacted on February 12, 1925. The purpose of this federal statute was to provide for private dispute resolutions facilitated by the judicial system enacted through arbitration. Generally speaking, the FAA is applied when a transaction is contemplated by both parties involved in interstate commerce and is predicated on the exercise of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. As employers and businesses begin to use arbitration agreements to resolve employment matters and the providers of goods and services begin to insert arbitration provisions into their contracts, it is clear that litigation will continue causing practitioners in the State of West Virginia, in particular, to contemplate if arbitration clauses in the Mountain State are good or bad for litigation and business.
To read the article in its’ entirety visit www.martinandseibert.com.
