Abstract
ON 21 FEBRUARY 2006, the US Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna,1 concluded that the Florida Supreme Court had infringed the Federal Arbitration Act when it refused to enforce an arbitral clause contained in a contract that was alleged to be void for breach of the Florida usury laws. Any other result would have brought about a reversal of a series of cases going back to the 1960s.2 That, though, is not the reason to be interested by the Buckeye case. The value in the Court's decision is the reasonably clear statement of three different aspects of separability. These are: the treatment of various problems with the contract in which the arbitration clause is physically embedded, the way in which arbitration clauses are frequently governed by different laws to the underlying agreement and the strange effects of separability on federal legal systems. One...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
