Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    i live move and have my being in Christ
    Posts
    1

    Court of Record

    Quote Originally Posted by Jethro View Post
    Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:



    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.
    Have you heard of Karl Lentz? Perhaps he may be able to shed some light on this subject matter.

    http://broadmind.org/

    Shalom

  2. #22
    Hello and welcome AuAgen;


    It is wonderful to have your contributions.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by AuAgen View Post
    Have you heard of Karl Lentz? Perhaps he may be able to shed some light on this subject matter.

    http://broadmind.org/

    Shalom
    Lol, Karl will not have patience with questions about interpreting their codes, case law, etc..

    If someone calls his show asking about that stuff, he will make background noise while they're talking, then call them "sir" as often as possible. LOL

    Suggestion to those curious about Karl's teachings: listen to several of his [3-4 hour long] calls on Talkshoe before calling him so you know how to shape your question and what you're getting into. :-)

  4. #24

    Smile Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Jethro View Post
    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.
    Last edited by KnowLaw; 05-17-14 at 06:30 AM. Reason: additional comment
    Maxim of law: "The laws sometimes sleep, but never die."

    Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets (and a whole lot more!)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •