Mantor began working for Circuit City in August 1992. When Circuit City hired Ma

Question

Mantor began working for Circuit City in August 1992. When Circuit City hired Mantor, it had no arbitration program. In 1995, Circuit City instituted an arbitration program called the “Associate Issue Resolution Program” (AIRP). Circuit City emphasized to managers the importance of full participation in the AIRP, claiming that the company had been losing money because of lawsuits filed by employees. Circuit City management stressed that employees had little choice in this matter. They suggested that employees should sign the agreement or prepare to be terminated. Although Circuit City circulated the forms regarding the AIRP in 1995, Mantor was able to avoid either signing up or openly refusing to participate in the AIRP for three years. In 1998, two Circuit City managers arranged a meeting with Mantor to discuss his participation in the AIRP. During this meeting, Mantor asked the two Circuit City managers what would happen should he decline to participate in the arbitration program. They responded to the effect that he would have no future with Circuit City. In February of 1998, Mantor agreed to participate in the AIRP, acknowledging in writing his receipt of (1) an “Associate Issue Resolution Handbook,” (2) the “Circuit City Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures,” and (3) a “Circuit City Arbitration Opt-Out Form.” Under its arbitration program, Circuit City requires an employee to pay a $75 filing fee to initiate an arbitration proceeding. There is a provision for waiving this fee at Circuit City's discretion. In October 2000 Circuit City terminated Mantor's employment. A year later, Mantor brought a civil action in state court, alleging 12 causes of action. Circuit City petitioned the district court to compel arbitration, and the district court granted Circuit City's motion to compel arbitration. Mantor appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.

1. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City likely lacks consideration on the part of Circuit City, and therefore is not enforceable against Mantor. True or False

2. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City is procedurally unconscionable, if the terms of the agreement are unfairly one-sided in limiting available remedies, prohibiting class actions, allocating costs, or permitting Circuit City to have unilateral power to modify or terminate the arbitration agreement. True or False

3. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City is substantively unconscionable, because Mantor effectively lacked any bargaining power to opt out of or modify the arbitration program. True or False

4. Mantor has a viable argument that the arbitration agreement is voidable, because his agreement to participate in the arbitration program was the result of duress, undue influence, mistake and misrepresentation. True or False

5. The cost sharing provision of the arbitration program requiring the employee to pay

a $75 filing fee to initiate an arbitration proceeding is unconscionable, even though

       the fee in question is modest in amount. True Or False   

1. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City likely lacks consideration on the part of Circuit City, and therefore is not enforceable against Mantor. True or False

2. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City is procedurally unconscionable, if the terms of the agreement are unfairly one-sided in limiting available remedies, prohibiting class actions, allocating costs, or permitting Circuit City to have unilateral power to modify or terminate the arbitration agreement. True or False

3. The arbitration agreement between Mantor and Circuit City is substantively unconscionable, because Mantor effectively lacked any bargaining power to opt out of or modify the arbitration program. True or False

4. Mantor has a viable argument that the arbitration agreement is voidable, because his agreement to participate in the arbitration program was the result of duress, undue influence, mistake and misrepresentation. True or False

5. The cost sharing provision of the arbitration program requiring the employee to pay

a $75 filing fee to initiate an arbitration proceeding is unconscionable, even though

       the fee in question is modest in amount. True Or False   

Explanation / Answer

1. False, It has consideration on the part of City

2. True, because company is threatning the manto to accept the agreement

3. True, it is the same agreement that cout has evaluated in Ingle

4. True, because it fulfill the condition of making an agreement voidable

Author's note: Please be specific to the question that need to be answered

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.