Arbitration: Case Studies Self-Quiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Res judicata is:
Choice 1 The rule that a case or matter cannot be re-tried once it has been settled by a court of law.
Choice 2 Might apply to an arbitration decision, such that the matter cannot be re-tried by a court.
Choice 3 Does not prevent a previously arbitrated matter from being considered anew in a later arbitration.
Choice 4 All of the above.
The “party arbitrator system,” is one in which:
Choice 1 The arbitrator can be disqualified for membership in a political party.
Choice 2 Either party to a suit can request, once, that an arbitrator be removed.
Choice 3 Each party chooses her own arbitrator, and the two arbitrators then choose a third.
Choice 4 A rewards-based system for arbitrators who efficiently conduct their proceedings.
The “umpire” in a party arbitration proceedings who fails to disclose an ex parte discussion with a representative for one party gives cause for a court to set aside the award in that case because:
Choice 1 Such a discussion creates an irrefutable presumption of bias.
Choice 2 Such a discussion constitutes misconduct.
Choice 3 Such a discussion constitutes misconduct if the umpire indicates some bias during the discussion.
Choice 4 The failure to disclose such a discussion will not, in fact, permit a court to set aside the award absent some showing of favoritism.
In Anystate, arbitration agreements are enforceable as per that state’s statute. In order to enforce an arbitration agreement, however, it is vital that:
Choice 1 The party against whom you seek to enforce the agreement is a party to the contract.
Choice 2 There be some contract which in some way benefits the party against whom you seek to enforce the agreement.
Choice 3 The matter somehow “involves commerce.”
Choice 4 The statute enforcing such agreements post-dates the agreement.
Credit card companies, phone companies, and other large business can never enforce arbitration agreements in their customer agreements because:
Choice 1 The case of Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 (6th Cir., 2003) renders all such agreements void..
Choice 2 The Federal Arbitration Act is limited to “maritime transactions” and these national companies must operate under federal law, not state law.
Choice 3 There is an inherent imbalance of power which makes any term in the customer agreement an adhesion contract.
Choice 4 These companies can seek enforcement of these terms in many cases.
Thanks to the Federal Arbitration Act, traditional defenses to a contract do not apply to arbitration clauses because:
Choice 1 The FAA supercedes any common-law rules and provides an exhaustive, exclusive list of defenses and remedies.
Choice 2 It would be inconsistent to permit a Federal statute to be made vague by incorporating more antiquated rules.
Choice 3 The FAA establishes not merely the permissibility but the desirability of arbitration, and therefore limits the defenses available.
Choice 4 Traditional defenses to contracts do still apply to arbitration clauses.
An arbitration clause which requires one party to the contract to arbitrate all claims, while the other party has the option to bring a claim in court or to arbitrate, is unenforceable because it is:
Choice 1 Unconscionable.
Choice 2 Vague and unclear in how it will operate.
Choice 3 Excessively broad.
Choice 4 Such a clause is enforceable.

© 2005 - 2018 National Paralegal College