Future-dispute arbitration waivers differ morally from submitting an existing dispute

Evidence

In appraising the wisdom of recognizing the legal power of a private person to deprive himself by contract of the protection of the judicial process, is there a significant difference between agreements to submit future disputes to arbitration, when the nature of the dispute and thus the consequences of the agreement cannot be known, and an agreement to submit an existing dispute, when the significance of what is being done can be understood and the terms of the submission tailored to fit the special circumstances? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 4900

Categorization

• DEFINE: Names the distinction between agreeing to arbitrate a known controversy versus a blind future-disputes clause — the load-bearing difference for waiver doctrine.
• XREF: Connects with Wilko v. Swan reasoning in the case below and with the polyad thread on how institutional choice is allocated. — connects to: A six-page adhesion contract burying an arbitration clause raises questions about lawyer ethics. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 4697; Arbitration’s praised finality is only a benefit to winners, not losers — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 4872; Mandatory class-action-waiver arbitration clauses quietly extinguish small consumer claims — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 1513 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Mandatory class-action-waiver arbitration clauses quietly extinguish small consumer claims #expands (0.72) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 1513