The integrality rule is a rule grounded in the analysis of party intent and allows for an arbitration agreement to be vitiated if the selected forum is unavailable and the forum was integral to the agreement. The integrality rule, conceived in 1990, has a short history, and while it is followed by several federal appellate circuits, it is not consistently named or referenced. The Eleventh Circuit applied the rule in Inetianbor v. CashCall, Inc., where the court precluded arbitration due to the integrality rule. This case raises questions of whether the integrality rule contradicts the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), whether it overrides the parties’ decision to arbitrate their disputes, and whether it runs counter to the Supreme Court’s insistence that courts should not add obstructions to arbitration beyond the FAA.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.