This is not meant to be legal advice, and this research may be outdated.
In California, some litigators advise that binding arbitration and waivers of jury trial are generally fine in agreements between companies at arm's length. One issue has to do with waiver of class action claims, but that is usually in the consumer context.
Though the right to civil jury trial is a fundamental constitutional right, it may be waived by a contract. Okura & Co. v. Careau Group, 783 F. Supp. 482, 488 (D. Cal. 1991). The Okura appeal arose from a dispute between two rival manufacturers of anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), more commonly known as crash test dummies. Okura applied Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944.
In order to be enforceable, a contractual waiver of the right to a jury trial must be apparent in the contract and its language must be unambiguous and unequivocal, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the parties. ( Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1616, 1619). However, the Court of Appeal decision in Grafton conflicted with Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court so in researching this issue, the legal professional studying this issue should make sure to review the latest cases and compare/contrast the facts of Grafton and Trizec. Although an effective waiver, especially in a non-adhesive contract, need not expressly state, a party waives rights to a jury trial, it must show that the party has agreed to resolve disputes in another forum such as as arbitration or mediation, or other forum other than judicial, which is the only forum in which disputes are resolved by juries.
Comment Preview