Abstract
This Comment examines the prospect of procedural contracts by comparing the text and policies of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules). As the existing body of literature addressing the normative desirability and plausibility of contractualized procedure grows, this Comment seeks to add textual and policy-based reasons against uncritically redesigning litigation in arbitration¿s image. Private contracts already govern in the private dispute-resolution arena, particularly in arbitration. This Comment views freedom of contract along a spectrum, where on one end there are non-negotiable mandates set forth for the public to follow, and freely negotiable terms, such as arbitration agreements under the FAA, toward the other end. This Comment comports with existing scholarship in that it views procedure as negotiable to some extent. However, based on its analyses of the text and policies behind the FAA and the Federal Rules, this Comment ultimately concludes that parties should have less procedural modification freedom in litigation than in arbitration.
Recommended Citation
Logan S. Kotler,
Reconciling Contractualized Procedure in Litigation and Arbitration: A Textual and Policy-Based Approach,
65
Emory L. J.
1177
(2016).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol65/iss4/5