May Mediation News
From Thomas P. Valenti, P.C. at Valenti Law
In This Issue
Shrink Wrap License Agreements
Conflict Prevention
Endorsing Arbitration
Quick Links
Join Our Mailing List 
Case Law Supports Use of Conforming "Shrink Wrap" License Agreements
 

Despite being "one of the most controversial and litigated issues in U.S. Courts nowadays" according to Martha L. Arias, a growing body of case law is providing support for conforming arbitration agreements contained in Shrink Wrap licenses.

Ms. Arias, director of Internet Business Law Services (IBLS), notes in her article, How the United States have Interpreted Traditional Terms Like Arbitration Clauses in Online Purchases, that court-supported Shrink Wrap arbitration agreements have conformed to basic disclosure standards. She continues with a brief summary of Hubbert v. Dell Corp., 835 N.E.2d 113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005), one of the seminal cases addressing the enforceability of Shrink Wrap arbitration agreements.

A "Business Approach" to Conflict Prevention

Many companies still resort to litigation when conflicts arise. However, Kathy Bryan - the former head of litigation for Motorola and current president and CEO of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution - advocates a "business approach" to dispute management starting with negotiation and mediation.
 
In her article, When Winning is the Expensive Solution, Bryan outlines five basic conflict avoidance and management techniques that enable businesses to remain focused and successful. Among them is the implementation of dispute resolution language in business contracts. Says Bryan, "Realize that dispute resolution clauses aren't boring - they're essential."

Read the full article here.

Around Town

Mr. Valenti was the guest presenter of a mediation talk at the Chicago office of Hinshaw & Culbertson on May 2, 2007.
New Jersey Physician Strongly Endorses Arbitration

Dr. Ruth J. Schulze, a gynecologist in Ridgewood, New Jersey, has spoken up for patients' rights. So have her patients.

"My patients don't feel that binding arbitration is an unfair contract," says Dr. Schulze. Statistics support her: 90% of her new and existing patients have signed a binding arbitration agreement. She continues, "They have embraced binding arbitration as a welcome opportunity to decrease the litigious nature of current American society."

This "litigious nature" is harmful to both physicians and patients alike. The delays and costs of the court system are doing a disservice to injured patients; malpractice cases can take up to five to seven years before they are resolved, notes Dr. Schulze, with plaintiff's attorneys receiving approximately 30% of the final jury award. Meanwhile, the rising costs of malpractice insurance and the threat of litigation are forcing many practicing doctors out of the business. Dr. Schulze points out that Bergen County, New Jersey, has lost over 30% of its practicing obstetricians in the past five years.

With fewer practicing physicians - and with those remaining working under the dark cloud of ever-threatening malpractice lawsuits - patients in need of care could soon find themselves with fewer options.

"The current system often undermines the doctor-patient relationship and certainly doesn't promote an honest dialogue for fear of legal repercussions," says Dr. Schulze. "It's time for doctors and patients in New Jersey to retake control of their own health care destiny."

Binding arbitration, she says, is the answer.

 
Read the rest of the article here.
 
This article courtesty of ADRForum.com
For questions, comments, etc., contact me at 312.832.7720 or by clicking here.
 
Sincerely,
 
Thomas Valenti
Thomas P. Valenti, P.C.