Search for Arbitration Attorneys or Arbitrators

Enter a city and state

Learn about Arbitration

Arbitration Topics

What's New at


About -

When you just can't come to an agreement, court isn't the only answer. Arbitration is an out-of-court means of dispute resolution. When parties have a disagreement, the 'arbitrator' or 'arbiter' is a neutral third-party that reviews the case to determine what action should be taken, and will determine the terms under which the dispute will be settled. The decision of the arbitrator is final, and may be legally binding or non-binding.

If you have a dispute with your employer or over a commercial contract, it is likely that arbitration is mandatory to resolve any issues. Being an easier means than taking anyone to court, arbitration is often required for resolving disputes within a company and is most often used in settling commercial disputes. Does arbitration sound like your solution? Get started today – find the arbitration attorney or arbitrator you need in any specialty, in any state.


Arbitration News

Article Image

Arbitration clauses have received a great deal of negative attention in the media lately and one incident involving a car dealership in New Jersey is no exception. The Appellate Division recently ruled the dealership’s sales contract that included an arbitration clause to be too confusing. The court further refused to dismiss the lawsuit that had been filed against the dealership in relation to the contract.


The decision was made by a panel that included two judges after a dealership customer signed documents that contained three different arbitration clauses. The clauses included numerous contradictory provisions that the panel found to be hopelessly confusing for the average customer. One of the panel members said it was unlikely a customer would have any idea what terms he or she was agreeing to when purchasing a vehicle and would not understand how to file for arbitration, or know how much it would cost or within what time frame to file.


The complaint against the dealership stated the contract violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as well as being a breach of warranty. The panel used the Appellate Divisions 2011 ruling in the NAACP of Camden County East vs. Foulke Management Corporation, which was a previous case that involved a vehicle dealership’s conflicting arbitration requirements. It too was considered vague and confusing, including whether the dealership would pay the arbitration fees and within what time frame the arbitration request needed to take place.


One clauses in the most recent questioned contract even required consumers to provide written notice to the dealership concerning the dispute and then wait 30 days before filing for arbitration, though other clauses did not feature this same requirement.