enforceability

Subscribe to enforceability via RSS

On November 6, 2024, the French Supreme Court rejected the enforcement of an interim award on jurisdiction in the legal saga opposing Malaysia to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and spanning several jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause in an 1878 agreement – and on the basis of which a US$15 billion award has since been issued against Malaysia – is null and void. This decision will presumably lead the French Supreme Court to annul the US$15 billion award itself next.

On June 15, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition issued a statement on the relationship between voluntary interviews with the agency and contractual provisions that require or limit the disclosure of information. The Bureau explains that voluntary interviews are a key aspect of investigations because they “are essential to help [them] understand real-world dynamics and effects,” and “reduce unnecessary burdens on marketplace stakeholders and Bureau staff.” In the statement, the Bureau asserts that certain contractual restrictions impede investigations, and should be considered void.

States around the country have activated their price gouging statutes due to the COVID 19 pandemic.  These temporary restrictions typically go into effect upon the declaration of a local, state or national emergency.  However, even though all the emergency declaration began at roughly the same time (the first week of March 2020), they likely will end at very different times. States are taking much different approaches to their predicted end-dates for their price gouging restrictions.

A recent decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division considered the enforceability of arbitration agreements by non-signatories. In Foti v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against defendant alleging violations of New Jersey’s Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), as well as the state’s Lemon Law (N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 to -49). The panel determined, among other things, that by signing a lease agreement, plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her dispute not only with the underlying signatories of the lease, but with any of its affiliates.

It is not uncommon for parties to enter into agreements containing jury waiver provisions. However, enforcing such provisions in California courts may be a losing battle. California has a strong public policy in favor of the right to a trial by jury, and California courts will not enforce a jury waiver except under limited circumstances. The bottom line: unless an advance contractual jury waiver provides for resolution in a nonjudicial forum, like arbitration or binding mediation, it will not be enforced in state and federal courts located in California.