The role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in alleged consumer product defect cases continues to be a hotly disputed issue. Plaintiff lawyers prefer the class action device, with its ability to pressure blackmail settlements, while product makers continue to require in product literature that consumers go the quicker and cheaper route of ADR.
The Third Circuit held last week that a putative class of computer customers should arbitrate, not litigate, their product defect claims against Dell Inc., even though the arbitration forum originally named in the computer purchase "terms and conditions" was no longer available. See Raheel Ahmad Khan, et al. v. Dell Inc., No.10-3655 (3d Cir.).
This appeal involved a matter of first impression for this court– whether Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required the appointment of a substitute arbitrator when the arbitrator designated by the parties was unavailable. The district court denied Dell's Motion to Compel Arbitration, based on the belief that the arbitration provision was rendered unenforceable because it provided for the parties to arbitrate exclusively before a forum that was unavailable when plaintiff commenced suit. The district court also refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator, finding that it could not compel the parties to submit to an arbitral forum to which they had not agreed.
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.