Changes

In ''Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contract has an arbitration clause under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]], an argument that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality must also go to arbitration, not to a court:

In ''Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna'', 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contract has an arbitration clause under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]], an argument that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality must also go to arbitration, not to a court:

:"regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator."

:"regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator."

546 U.S. at 449.

546 U.S. at 449.

[[category:arbitration]]

[[category:arbitration]]