Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
It is my comprehension that INVIOLATE means that a right or privilege is not violated. But since I have choice as we all do, then I have the ability to contract. And therefore I have the choice to enter into a contract as per the terms agreed. Therefore if the terms in the agreement include that arbitration will be the means for dispute resolution, then the Contract is the Law and there is no violation of any rights. Meaning IF I make a promise in an agreement then I should keep it according to my agreement.

Therefore if I cannot live with the terms of the contract then I should not make a use of the things governed by the contract - especially if the contract stipulates that the right of trial by jury stands waived. We are all grown ups and we each have full liability or we should anyways - and that being said - if we don't like the contract we should novate it - and if we cannot novate it, then we should not enter upon the contract if we cannot live with the terms.
I would tend to agree with your analysis, Michael. But let me throw a few concepts and scenarios at you to see if this may coax you to look at it another way...

1. Can the right to contract supersede other "inviolate rights"? e.g. Can the right to vote be waived via contract?

2. What if the conduct complained about between the "arbitration clause parties" is unlawful? e.g. If it is alleged the defendant committed conversion of property or fraud, there is no contractual provision for that conduct. That is, unlawful conduct falls outside the scope of a contract. Would a suit for damages suffered due to unlawful conduct "bypass" the arbitration clause, or would such claims still be required to be arbitrated?

3. What if the "arbitration clause party" effectively enjoys a monopoly? For example, a utility company or performance rights organizations -- there is no where else to turn for the essential service you need, or a small group of companies that have an effective monopoly all have "arbitration clauses". These companies owe their existence and monopoly to the same government(s) that guarantee inviolate rights. In such a case, how can it be deemed that a "choice" to enter into such a contract and waive one's rights is truly "voluntary"?