In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna et al., the case was heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the court or the arbitrator should decide the issues of a case when illegality in relation to a contract is claimed. What was the ruling?
A) An arbitrator should address charges of illegality involving either an arbitration provision or the contract as a whole.
B) When an arbitration provision in a contract is not specifically challenged, an arbitrator should address a charge of illegality to the contract as a whole.
C) When an arbitration provision in a contract is not specifically challenged, a court should address a charge of illegality to the contract as a whole.
D) The court should address charges of illegality involving either an arbitration provision or the contract as a whole.
E) Whether a court or an arbitrator should address charges of illegality involving either an arbitration provision or the contract as a whole depends upon the first to file rule.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna ruled that when an arbitration provision in a contract is not specifically challenged, an arbitrator, not the court, should address a charge of illegality to the contract as a whole. This decision emphasizes the importance of arbitration clauses and the autonomy of arbitrators in resolving disputes that involve the broader contract's legality, provided the arbitration clause itself is not directly challenged.