Proponents of arbitration cite many advantages. Arbitration is a process intended to resolve disputes quickly, and at less cost. But does it? Courts have made it clear that they continue to favor and compel it, but are the “benefits” of arbitration always realized? What procedural issues and claims prevent a “speedy” or “cost-effective” arbitration process? When should the courts take a second look at compelling arbitration?

New Jersey’s Supreme Court addressed arbitration clauses in 2019 and will confront them again in the upcoming term. Practitioners continue to face unique issues, which are sometimes overlooked by a court, when construing an arbitration clause. These include the following:

  • Claims against non-signatories to the agreement containing an arbitration clause;
  • Multiple agreements that govern the relationship/transaction with varying and inconsistent dispute resolution provisions; or 
  • Multiple claims against multiple parties, some subject to arbitration and others not.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]