Comments on: Business Week on arbitration clauses https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: E-Bell https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8688 Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:49:51 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8688 ras:

Federal courts are often required to follow the substantive law of the state in which the suit originated.

It’s not a matter of the 9th Circuit being a “higher” court than the California Supreme Court. It’s more of a matter of the federal court following the law of the jurisdiction where the harm occurred.

As to your second question, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.

]]> By: ras https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8687 Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:38:19 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8687 I’m back w/another layman’s dumb q. Here it is: how can the 9th circuit be “bound” by California Supreme Court precedent? Isn’t the 9th a higher court?

2nd q: what if the contracts instead specified that the plaintiff’s lawyer must be paid hourly at a rate equal to the average hourly rate of lawyers in the US? But not a percentage of the recovery, of course.

]]> By: Ron Coleman https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/business-week-on-arbitration-clauses/comment-page-1/#comment-8686 Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:31:26 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5244#comment-8686 How did your last negotiation over a cell phone contract go, Ted? Okay, a facetious question; I infer that you don’t accept the concept of contracts of adhesion. But do you take the position that there are no policies that a state may consider to be of sufficient importance that they may not be waived ex ante in any contracting context, much less a consumer context?

]]>