James Hayes v. Delbert Services Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \an unenforceable provision cannot be severed when it goes the \essence\ of the contract.\
• concluding that an arbitration agreement which excluded the application of “any law other than” tribal law “almost surreptitiously waives a potential claimant’s federal rights through the guise of a choice of law clause”
• concluding that a provision stipulating that “no matter where the arbitration occurs, the arbitrator will not apply ‘any law other than the law of the [Tribe] to this Agreement’” provided further evidence of a general disavowal of federal law
• holding that the arbitration agreement and the delegation provision were non- severable because the \essence\ of the contract was intended to ensure that the defendants \could engage in lending and collection practices free from the strictures of any federal law\
• stating that the unenforceable CRST choice of law provisions cannot be severed and refusing to enforce arbitration because \the offending provisions go to the core of the arbitration agreement\
• concluding that because the arbitration agreement “underhandedly convert[ed] a choice of law clause into a choice of no law clause . . . renounc[ing] the authority of the federal statutes to which it is and must remain subject,” it was “unenforceable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).