Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial

[KnowLaw]

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.