Abstract
The United States Supreme Court has decided two cases concerning the ability of contracting parties to bypass the preemptive provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. The two cases, Volt v. Board of Trustees and Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., appear to be in conflict and the Court's token effort to harmonize them is unpersuasive. This Article analyzes these cases and proposes that, by limiting the holding of each case to a distinct and defined ambit, they can be rationally reconciled.
How to Cite
39 Ariz. L. Rev. 35 (1997)
3
Views
1
Downloads