| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
''Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna'', 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law.
The lending agreements called for all disputes between the borrower and lender to be settled in arbitration. The original plaintiffs argued that the entire contract, including the arbitration clause, was invalid because it violated the law. When it was appealed to the High Court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a majority of seven that the Federal Arbitration Act, as previously interpreted by the Court, settled a question that had long been debated by legal scholars and lower-court judges. The opinion distinguished void and voidable contracts, requiring that in the latter an arbitrator rule on all issues including the legality of the contract unless the arbitration clause was itself challenged. The only dissenter was Clarence Thomas, who restated his belief that the Arbitration Act does not supersede state law.
==Background of the case==
In 1978, the court's ''Marquette Bank'' decision, which held that under the National Banking Act of 1863 states could not enforce their anti-usury laws against nationally-chartered banks based in other states, opened the door to increased credit card spending by Americans. Other forms of consumer credit, such as title and payday loans, became available for those who could not get even the most restrictive credit cards available. Social activists criticized the banks and companies that engaged in those practices, calling them predatory lenders who targeted the poor with promises of no credit check and easy money that only came at extremely high interest rates, profiting when the loans were extended long beyond the original short term.〔King, Uriah, Parrish, Leslie and Tanik, Ozlem; ; November 30, 2006; retrieved September 29, 2008.〕
Most such lenders had their customers sign credit agreements that included arbitration clauses specifying that all disputes were to be resolved through that process rather than litigation. Arbitration in turn was criticized as a business-friendly forum which furthered the exploitation of consumers most in need of money.〔Public Citizen, , September 2007, retrieved October 13, 2008.,〕 Lawsuits over these contracts, however, were increasingly dismissed by lower courts that followed the Supreme Court's ''Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.''〔''Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.'', , at findlaw.com.〕 case, which created the separability doctrine, under which all issues in contracts with arbitration clauses, save the clause itself, were to be decided by the arbitrator and not a court, under the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act. In ''Southland Corp. v. Keating'',〔''Southland Corp. v. Keating'', , at findlaw.com.〕 the Court held the FAA, and thus the separability doctrine, applicable to contracts executed under state law as well.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|