| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| Description
| - Protection of consumers became a phenomenon of many governmental politics. Retrieval of a balance between privat autonomy and protection of a weaker party is very sensitive. The particular degree of consumers protection through limitation of contractual autonomy (in B2C contracts) as well as procedural autonomy (regarding B2C dispute resolution mechanisms), as chosen by particular governments, has both legal and economic effects, in positive and negative sense. The European Court of Human Rights adjudicated repeatedly that traditional court litigation is not capable to grant effective protection to contractual claims in many countries. Arbitration is therefore one of possible tools for B2C dispute resolution, even if many countries and obviously the EU Commission followe rather an opposite strategy (keeping down arbitrability of B2C disputes in the opposite to US trends). Arbitration is not a cure-all and definitely not a method suitable for the resolution of any and all types of disputes. It has its proponents as well as opponents. Indeed, it is hard to claim that a particular type (class) of disputes is a priori fit to be resolved in arbitration, rather than litigation, or vice versa. This also applies to consumer disputes (disputes from consumer contracts). It is fairly undisputable that consumers deserve a certain degree of specific protection in cases in which they are forced to enter into a particular contract and have no other option than to accept the conditions stipulated by the other party (the professional). But we cannot principally claim that the resolution of these disputes in court would be more suitable than arbitration or any other, the so-called alternative, dispute resolution method (ADR).
- Protection of consumers became a phenomenon of many governmental politics. Retrieval of a balance between privat autonomy and protection of a weaker party is very sensitive. The particular degree of consumers protection through limitation of contractual autonomy (in B2C contracts) as well as procedural autonomy (regarding B2C dispute resolution mechanisms), as chosen by particular governments, has both legal and economic effects, in positive and negative sense. The European Court of Human Rights adjudicated repeatedly that traditional court litigation is not capable to grant effective protection to contractual claims in many countries. Arbitration is therefore one of possible tools for B2C dispute resolution, even if many countries and obviously the EU Commission followe rather an opposite strategy (keeping down arbitrability of B2C disputes in the opposite to US trends). Arbitration is not a cure-all and definitely not a method suitable for the resolution of any and all types of disputes. It has its proponents as well as opponents. Indeed, it is hard to claim that a particular type (class) of disputes is a priori fit to be resolved in arbitration, rather than litigation, or vice versa. This also applies to consumer disputes (disputes from consumer contracts). It is fairly undisputable that consumers deserve a certain degree of specific protection in cases in which they are forced to enter into a particular contract and have no other option than to accept the conditions stipulated by the other party (the professional). But we cannot principally claim that the resolution of these disputes in court would be more suitable than arbitration or any other, the so-called alternative, dispute resolution method (ADR). (en)
|
| Title
| - Arbitrability Limitation In Consumer (B2C) Disputes? : Consumers´Protection As Legal And Economic Phenomenon
- Arbitrability Limitation In Consumer (B2C) Disputes? : Consumers´Protection As Legal And Economic Phenomenon (en)
|
| skos:prefLabel
| - Arbitrability Limitation In Consumer (B2C) Disputes? : Consumers´Protection As Legal And Economic Phenomenon
- Arbitrability Limitation In Consumer (B2C) Disputes? : Consumers´Protection As Legal And Economic Phenomenon (en)
|
| skos:notation
| - RIV/61989100:27510/13:86088042!RIV14-MSM-27510___
|
| http://linked.open...avai/riv/aktivita
| |
| http://linked.open...avai/riv/aktivity
| |
| http://linked.open...iv/cisloPeriodika
| |
| http://linked.open...vai/riv/dodaniDat
| |
| http://linked.open...aciTvurceVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open.../riv/druhVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open...iv/duvernostUdaju
| |
| http://linked.open...titaPredkladatele
| |
| http://linked.open...dnocenehoVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open...ai/riv/idVysledku
| - RIV/61989100:27510/13:86088042
|
| http://linked.open...riv/jazykVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open.../riv/klicovaSlova
| - denial of justice; contracts; constitutional principle; consumer; class actions; B2C disputes; autonomy; ADR; abuse of rights; arbitrator; arbitrability; arbitration (en)
|
| http://linked.open.../riv/klicoveSlovo
| |
| http://linked.open...odStatuVydavatele
| |
| http://linked.open...ontrolniKodProRIV
| |
| http://linked.open...i/riv/nazevZdroje
| - Journal of Governance and Regulation
|
| http://linked.open...in/vavai/riv/obor
| |
| http://linked.open...ichTvurcuVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open...cetTvurcuVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open...UplatneniVysledku
| |
| http://linked.open...v/svazekPeriodika
| |
| http://linked.open...iv/tvurceVysledku
| |
| issn
| |
| number of pages
| |
| http://localhost/t...ganizacniJednotka
| |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)