Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial
Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:
Quote:
That the right of trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.
However, many contracts include "mandatory" arbitration clauses; that is, language to the effect that in the event there is a dispute, the parties agree to binding arbitration with no other recourse.
Considering that the People's Supreme Law states trial by Jury is inviolate -- something that cannot be violated, period -- does anybody have any experience with cases or authorities in which it was decided whether a contractual agreement to arbitration supersedes the Constitutional guarantee?
Thanks, everyone.
"Some courts"....Executive Branch Administrative "courts"...vs......
....Judicial Branch Equity courts.
As far as I can tell certain "courts" are nothing more than Administrative offices/locations where Executive Branch administrative processes take place = where they try and get you to pay them money for some act that has no injured party or damaged party. And then there are the Equity Courts where one can determine if something is actually theirs like a title to a car, etc. The "law" courts say that possession of something means "ownership" but an Equity Court will determine if someone's ownership of something occurred via fraud, ie: stolen property.
I am new to this forum. I was looking for some information on Paul Andrew Mitchell and stumbled across it. I hope that I can learn from others. I have done a lot of reading and a lot of listening to various people that seem to have done some really great research. One of them is Paul Andrew Mitchell. The other's are Richard McDonald and Robb Rytlewski.
Please let me know I am off base on my understanding of "admin courts" vs. the equity courts.
Thanks,
Sam
Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jethro
I'd prefer a more definite outcome, so let me try to focus onto one area: whether the "arbitration clause" is binding if one of the parties has engaged in unlawful conduct.
But what about a less extreme example, such as an allegation of fraud or conversion? It would seem to me that arbitration would be limited to matters within the contract. But since there is no such thing as a unlawful contract such as contractual provisions for fraud and conversion, any such acts a party does to the other must be deemed to be outside of the scope of a lawful contract and therefore not subject to a contractual arbitration clause.
I would agree with you here, Jethro, without knowing anything of the details about which you speak. Fraud vitiates a contract. I would think that allows one to proceed in law. The fraud must first be proven, though.
Based on the following maxims of law:
A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.
No action arises on an immoral contract.
Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.
Out of fraud no action arises.
Advice, unless fraudulent, does not create an obligation.
It is a fraud to conceal a fraud
A mandate of an illegal thing is void.
Equal knowledge on both sides makes the contracting parties equal.