Wildy logo
(020) 7242 5778

Wildy’s Book News

Book News cover photo

Vol 21 No 9 Sept/Oct 2016

Book of the Month

Cover of Goode on Commercial Law

Goode on Commercial Law

Edited by: Ewan McKendrick
Price: £170.00

Pupillage & Student Offers

Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students

Read More ...

Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online


Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment

ISBN13: 9781107406117
Published: August 2012
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Country of Publication: UK
Format: Paperback (Hardback in 2006)
Price: £34.99

This is a Print On Demand Title.
The publisher will print a copy to fulfill your order. Books can take between 1 to 3 weeks. Looseleaf titles between 1 to 2 weeks.

Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment is a source of arguments and practical suggestions for changing the American arbitration process. The book, first published in 2006, argues that the Federal Arbitration Act badly needs major changes. The authors, who have previously written major articles on arbitration law and policy, here set out their own views and argue among themselves about the necessary reforms of arbitration.

The book contains draft legislation for use in international and domestic arbitration and a detailed explanation of the precise justifications for proposed legislative changes. It also contains two proposals that might be deemed radical - to ban arbitration related to the purchase of products by consumers and to prohibit arbitration of employment disputes. Each proposal is vetted fully and critiqued by one or more of the other co-authors.

Other Jurisdictions , Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, USA
1. The core values of arbitration
2. Common legal issues in American arbitration law
3. The appropriate role of state arbitration law in a federal system: choice and preemption
4. Interstate arbitration: chapter 1 of the federal arbitration act
5. Consumer arbitration
6. International arbitration: implementing the New York convention
7. Tension points: where the co-authors disagree