Dispensing Injustice: Stolt-Nielsen and Its Implications - Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.

Authors

Nicholas Goodrich

Abstract

The immediate effect of the holding was to allow a group of corporate defendants to use their superior bargaining position in the contracting process to effectively shield themselves from liability. Although Stolt-Nielsen involved business entities, the case also has implications in the consumer context. If the Court were to extend the reasoning of the case to disputes involving adhesion contracts, corporations would enjoy this immunity in the context of consumer disputes. Far from a hypothetical exercise in the reaches of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court is expected to decide this very issue during the 2010 term. In light of these concerns, Congress should enact the Arbitration Fairness Act in order to prevent further injustice.

Recommended Citation

Nicholas Goodrich, Dispensing Injustice: Stolt-Nielsen and Its Implications - Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 2011 J. Disp. Resol. (2011)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2011/iss1/11