Are arbitration agreements subject to a 6 year statute of limitations in NJ? Generally, breach of contract in New Jersey must be filed within six years of the date the cause of action accrues. Does this apply to enforcement of arbitration agreements?
Are arbitration agreements subject to a 6 year statute of limitations in NJ? Yes. Remember the precedents from NJ that I cited in response to one of your recent posts: a state may not &quot;subject an arbitration agreement to more burdensome requirements than those governing the formation of other contracts&quot; This implies that the statute of limitations for arbitration agreements is the same as for contracts in general. If it were otherwise, that departure would constitute a greater burden on whichever party happens to oppose the enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
Statutes of limitations (hereinafter "SOL") vary from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction. If it is only one-year in New York (I've not confirmed this) that would not be surprising. SOLs exist for all civil matters and nearly all criminal matters. I'd just like to point out that your question is not really limited to defamation or to the time frame for which the specific SOL runs for libel/slander ... at least as I've read it. It seems you are asking the broader question pertaining to what the philosophical or practical purpose(s) for SOLs in general are, as well as what effect these limits can have on the ability of a would-be claimant/plaintiff to get relief through the courts. So, to answer whether a person who believes they've been defamed can still bring a cause of action after the SOL has passed: the short answer is no. But, that is only the short answer. SOL is an affirmative defense, meaning that it can only be asserted if it is pled in the answer to a complaint. So, if John Doe feels he's been defamed by a libelous statement in the Times, and he files suit 4 years after the statement was made (and the SOL is 1 year), the court will still accept the filing of the complaint and Times must still be served. You do not lose the right to file your claim, when the SOL has passed, which is a very common misconception of the law. And, Times must still file an Answer to avoid defaulting. However, in that answer Times (no doubt by and through qualified counsel) will most likely assert a variety of affirmative defenses pro forma, which will include the passage of SOL (the claim is stale). If, in fact, the SOL has passed and the affirmative defense is pled, the next thing the Times will do is file a motion to dismiss. The judge will view the complaint in a light most favorable to Doe, the plaintiff, which will lay out all the facts (including when the libelous statement was published). If the cause of action accrued (this just means when the injury was sustained) and the claim was not filed prior to the expiration of the SOL, Doe's case will be dismissed. If the Times does not assert SOL though, it is deemed to have been waived for that and any subsequent related proceedings. There are ways to toll (extend) the statute of limitations. There is a discovery rule (this does not mean Doe didn't read it until after the SOL, even though he was able to). It means that the SOL can be tolled in cases where one could not have discovered the tort occurred. In these instances, the SOL doesn't begin to run until the discovery was either made or should have been made. This is most typically seen in medical malpractice cases (e.g., a surgeon leaves a sponge or instrument in your abdomen, and after years of failed treatments for IBS your doc sends you for an x-ray and an MRI and it's discovered) or in asbestos cases (you don't know you breathed it until you have asbestosis) &ndash; those types of scenarios. In cases like that, the SOL begins to run when you find out the tort occurred. This has also been successful in recovered memory cases where childhood sexual abuse occurred but was suppressed. Incapacitation is another way the SOL can be tolled. So, in Doe's libel case, the SOL can be tolled if he is incapacitated (in a coma and didn't wake for 4 years, in a mental hospital in a break from reality for 5 years) &ndash; in such circumstances you can still file a claim and have it survive a motion to dismiss based on SOL once you are rehabilitated. Also, Absence due to military service is reason to toll in some jurisdictions. Lastly, (at least the last one I can recall) is that minors can often toll the SOL however long the statute is (say 1 year) after they turn 18. As for why there are SOLs: That is more public policy than anything else. It is one of the oldest rules of law known to modern man, dating back all the way to early Greek and Roman law. Statutes of limitations are a fundamental part of EU and US law, as well as most other modern legal systems. They function to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become dubious and unclear due to the progression of time, which can lead to lost or uncertain memories, death of witnesses (for each side), or disappearance/inability to locate witnesses. The policies behind SOLs are also for judicial economy and to protect defendants from having a never-ending potential suit looming over them. Often, the seriousness of the crime or the tort, or some element of it, dictates the time frame of the SOL. It is a means to ensure that plaintiffs pursue their claims with reasonable diligence: I.e., if it matters to you, file it. Also, as I touched on above, time disadvantages defendants. Plaintiffs are the "injured" party, so they tend to retain evidence much longer than a defendant, who might not even realize he has done wrong &ndash; especially in civil matters. So, in a libel case, the whole basis of the claim is the irreparable damage to your reputation. If more than a year has passed and you didn't know about it, one could assume the damage never rose to the level of having sufficed to make a valid claim in the first place. That is why they run fast in those cases. They run fast in medical malpractice claims too, but this is a result of tort reform &ndash; the public policy that litigation against doctors/hospitals causes increased health care costs for everyone. So, policy suggests it's best for society to dispose of these claims quickly (not so much if you're the plaintiff). Whereas most regular negligence claims can have SOLs as long as six years in some jurisdictions where I have practiced. So there are clearly policy determinations going into these legislative acts. The Golden Rule of Law that I tell all of my clients is this: If you think you have a claim, talk to a lawyer right away, because if you don't you can lose the right to pursue relief, much, much quicker than one may ever imagine! I know this is a long answer, but I get asked this (type) of question all the time. Plaintiffs feel the SOLs run too fast, while Defendants cannot believe they can still be on the hook!
Short Answer Must a law be broken for a court to hear the case? Generally speaking a union or management group involved in a labor dispute has to allege that the other side did something that entitled them to some sort of relief under the applicable labor laws and any surviving provisions of the collective bargaining agreement of the parties. But an adjudicator can only extremely rarely impose the economic terms of a new collective bargaining agreement, and then generally only after the parties have been ordered to participate in mediation and failure to produce a collective bargaining agreement. The far more common resolution of a failure to reach a new collective bargaining agreement is to allow a strike or lockout to continue until an agreement is reached. But, in rare circumstances, typically when a strike is not permitted for public policy reasons, a third-party arbitrator can sometimes impose economic terms for a new collective bargaining agreement when efforts to negotiation new terms fail. This said, different subjects of labor disputes, and different kinds of employment (in industry or occupational type) are often handled differently from each other. Canada has at least twenty-one different labor boards or tribunals to handle different kinds of labor disputes, each with its own separate authorizing statute. Long Answer There Is More Than One Set Of Labor Laws In Canada Labor law is a somewhat tricky thing that doesn't always follow general principles of contract law. There is considerable statutory guidance in this area that is not present in ordinary contract law, and it isn't entirely one size fits all. In particular, the labor laws that apply to public sector unions are different from those that apply to private sector unions, and there are some industries and occupations that are regulated differently than others in the union-management relations area. For example, the actions that janitors at a private medical facility may legally take in a labor dispute are different from the actions that doctor-employees at a private medical facility may take, which are different again from the actions that military personnel in a government owned and run military hospital may take. Special rules and forums are also often implicated if the employer is in the midst of a bankruptcy. The main details regarding these categories of laws are discussed under the last heading of this answer. The exact extent of a labor board or tribunals' authority depends upon the nature of the dispute, whether the dispute is public sector or private sector, and if the dispute is in the private sector, whether it involves one of the 10% of so of private sector unionized employers that are governed by special federal laws that apply to critical or pervasively multi-province or international industries. There Are Several Main Kinds Of Union-Management Disagreements When a collective bargaining agreement is or was in place between a recognized union and an employer unit as defined under the applicable labor laws (which are not always defined in the same way in every union, with factories, for example, usually organized on a work place basis, but the movie industry, in contrast, usually organized on an industrywide basis), there are several of kinds of disputes that can arise. Disputes Over Future Contract Terms One kind of dispute is a dispute over what the economic terms of a future collective bargaining agreement. Usually, in the context of private sector employees that aren't subject to any special rules, the decision making authority will not impose particular economic terms on either side, although it might order the union and management to mediate their dispute with a labor law mediator selected in a method provided by the old collective bargaining agreement or by law. If a mediation order has been entered, there could conceivably be a violation of that mediation order arising from failing to negotiate in good faith, but failing to negotiate in good faith usually involves failing to listen to what the mediator and/or the other side has to say for a reasonable amount of time, or failing to present any opening offer in the negotiation that the other side could accept if it wanted to, or presenting an offer so absurd (e.g. a $1000 dollar an hour minimum wage of entry level janitors in 2022) that it amounts to not making an offer at all. But generally speaking, unless some special circumstances (e.g. public employees or critical essential employees of some kind defined by statute) are involved a court won't impose economic terms on either party and won't consider a mere failure to compromise meaningfully from an initial stance after hearing out the other side to constitute bad faith negotiation. The law applicable to collective bargaining in Canada (as of April 2008) is reviewed here. Unfair Labor Practice Disputes The other kind of dispute between a union and the management group that it is dealing with, is that one side or the other has engaged in something that is defined by law as an unfair labor practice. For example, in Canada (although the same conduct would usually be ignored by authorities in China or France) if union members kidnap the labor negotiators for the management team and detail them in a windowless room without access to the outside world, that would probably constitute an unfair labor practice by the union, while a management action to hire goons to intimate the union members, or informants to spy in the inner discussions of the union negotiators would probably constitute an unfair labor practice on the management side. Obviously, I've presented some very extreme examples, and the interplay of what does or does not constitute an unfair labor practice in light of the relevant statutes and case law is arcane to the point of being byzantine in practice, with lots of legal guidance and lots of room for lawyers for both sides to disagree over how to apply the law to the facts. Also, some of these disputes may be defined as criminal conduct to be handled by criminal prosecutors, rather than in the labor law context, or may be handled in parallel in both forums. The authority deciding the matter can consider allegations of unfair labor practices and impose sanctions or issue court orders accordingly, if there are. Disputes Over Contract Implementation There is also a third kind of dispute, over how a collective bargaining agreement that is in place should be implied in practice to incidents involving particular workers or to particular employer policies. For example, there might be a dispute over whether a particular employee was properly fired for good cause, or over whether a proposed fringe benefits plan is consistent with the collective bargaining agreements terms. These are frequently hired by an agreed panel of arbitrators that handles all of the disputes that arise over the term of a collective bargaining agreement. But this kind of dispute is really beyond the scope of the question. Disputes Between Union Members And Unions Over Union Operations Another kind of dispute sometimes handled in a labor law forum in accordance with union-management laws is a dispute that arises between one or more union members and their own union (e.g. a disputed election of union officers). See, e.g. here (reviewing the substantive law that applies, while largely glossing over the procedural side of these disputes). But this also appears to be beyond the scope of the question. Who Is Authorized To Resolve Or Address Particular Disputes? I have avoided using the term &quot;court&quot; in lieu of the &quot;authority deciding the question&quot; because I am not familiar enough with the procedural side of Canadian labor law to know who this authority is, and that is something that is likely to vary based upon the kind of employer involved, the nature of the dispute, and the stage of the process that the dispute adjudication process for the dispute has reached. At least in the first instance, these kinds of disputes are almost never handled by ordinary courts that handle non-union related civil or criminal matters, unless an unfair labor practices dispute simultaneously constitutes a criminal offense that is prosecuted like any other crime. There are at least twenty-one labor boards or tribunals in Canada. One for the federal public sector, one or more for national private sector essential industries at the federal level, one for all private and public sector workers in Quebec, and a respective public sector and private sector body in each of the other nine provinces. These boards or tribunals handle labor disputes in the first instance and possibly an initial review of a delegated hearing officer's decision, but at some point their decisions are appealable by some process to one or more provincial courts in the case of the at least nineteen provincial level labor boards or tribunals, and ultimately to the Canadian Supreme Court, and to one of more federal courts (and at a minimum ultimately to the Canadian Supreme Court) in the case of the two ore more federal labor boards or tribunals. It is also conceivable in at least some cases that the union and management could agree, either post-dispute, or in some cases even pre-dispute under the previous expired collective bargaining agreement, to have matters that they set forth as the subject-matter subject to this treatment, resolved by a panel of private arbitrators rather than the usual labor labor tribunals or boards. The particular forum that applies to a particular kind of labor law dispute in Canada doesn't really change, however, the basic sketchy outline of the substantive Canadian labor law described above that applies to whomever is the adjudicator between the union and management in a particular labor dispute. The article on collective bargain cited above states: In Canada collective bargaining is shaped by a tight statutory structure used to regulate almost every aspect of of the union-manangement relationship. Such legislation closely regulates the formation of the collective bargaining relationship, governs the conduct and timing of the bargaining process, places restrictions on economic conflict, and may, in some cases, mandate certain terms of the collective agreement. The legislation confers broad administrative powers on labour relations boards or tribunals, which play a major role in the application of the legislation (Carter 1995). Labour tribunals regulate both management and union activity and may restrain some forms of employer interference with union organizing and bargaining activity as well as the untimely use of economic sanctions by trade unions. Unlike the United States, the labour relations jurisdiction of the Canadian federal government is much more extensive than that of the state governments. Legislative authority in Canada is divided among eleven different jurisdictions, ten provincial and one federal. As a result of various court interpretations of the Canadian Consitution, the jurisdiction of the federal government has been restricted to undertakings falling within its specific legislative authority and to conduct falling within its criminal law power. Due to the constitutional division of legislative authority, most private sector employees in Canada fall under the jurisdiction of the labour laws of the province in which they work. Approximately 90% of private sector workers are provincially regulated.In addition to workers employed in manufacturing, mining (excluding uranium), forest products industries, construction, service industries, and local transportation, employees of provincial and local government are covered by provincial jurisdiction. Although the federal government’s labour relations jurisdiction covers a relatively small percentage of private sector employees, these include workers in a number of important areas of the economy including: interprovincial or international air, rail shipping and trucking operations; broadcasting, banks, uranium mines, and grain elevator operations. All federal public sector employees fall within federal jurisdiction but are covered by a different collective bargaining statute than federal private sector employees. The article then continues to explain that: In 1967, the Public Services Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) was passed, creating a new and distinctive collective bargaining structure for employees of the federal government and providing for arbitration or the conciliation/strike route as its final dispute resolution mechanism. The PSSRA granted collective bargaining rights to workers in federal departments, a number of federal agencies for which the Treasury Board is the designated employer, and a number of government agencies or separate employers who administer their own labour relations programs. Since the passage of this legislation, all provincial governments have given their public servants the right to collectively bargain, including the right to strike in some jurisdictions and arbitration in others. In Quebec, all workers, private, public and parapublic, come under the Quebec Labour Code. In Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, public servants are granted the right to collective bargaining through their respective civil service statutes. The remaining seven provinces have special public-sector labour relations statutes, which grant the right to collective bargaining. Since the middle of the 1970s, the public sector has become the most highly unionized segment of the Canadian economy. Collective bargaining has been extended to cover not only workers in the public sector employed by federal, provincial and municipal governments, but workers in the parapublic sector not directly employed by governments, but rather by organizations extensively supported by government funding—this includes teachers, health-care workers, police officers and firefighters. The evolution of the collective bargaining process, which now includes public sector workers in health care, education, government services, has affected not only the way public services are provided but has also contributed to higher levels of taxation and forced the re-definition of the meaning of public services. For example, in Quebec, publicly funded religious schools operated on something akin to U.S. voucher systems are subject to its labor laws which are more or less similar between private sector and public sector unions and are dealt with by a single tribunal with any distinctions between the two treating unions at these schools as public sector, rather than private sector unions.
There are three answers here. First, as is common on this site, you are using the term, "legal" and "illegal." Those are not legally meaningfully terms. A good lawyer won't use those terms to mean allowed or disallowed. We talk in terms of potential civil or criminal liability, or other sanctions and consequences. To say that something is "legal" does not communicate much. Second, all contracts are governed by a duty of good faith. That means that you cannot try to "trick" someone with the terms of the contract and expect to enforce that contract against them and you cannot try to skirt your obligations by finding a tricky form of compliance not within the mutual understanding of the agreement. As with all things, defining good faith is not easy, and depends on the specific context of a situation. It is worth distinguishing between the duty of good faith, and the duties one owes to a fiduciary; good faith is surely far less, but nevertheless still meaningful. Third, a defense to non-performance of a contract is that the agreement as written is unconscionable. A contract that is a grossly unfair deal where the contract was not actively negotiated (i.e. Blindly signing a bad form contract), may fall under this category. Note: I am not your lawyer; this is not legal advice; contact a licensed attorney in your area; do not rely on my statements; I merely am providing a general answer that is academic in nature.
If such a company oversteps one of these parameters for lawful operation, are arbitration clauses binding in respect of these breaches, in removing judicial recourse for the customer in court, rather than in arbitration venues? In this situation, the arbitration clause (assuming it was actually entered into) is binding and there is no meaningful judicial recourse through a civil lawsuit. It does not bar criminal prosecutions or administrative agency action. And what . . . scenarios give rise to causes of action that can immutably transcend arbitration clauses? Civil actions seeking redress from sexual assaults are exempt from arbitration in the U.S., pursuant to H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which was signed into law on March 3, 2022.
The statute of limitations in Oregon appears to be six years (per the link provided by Nate Eldgredge in the comments). This would be extended if there was a partial payment or written affirmation of the debt by the debtor.
The fact that you're not a native speaker of English doesn't alter the legal situation. If you literally had no understanding of English but for some reason you signed a piece of paper, then you might argue that there was no agreement in the first place, but obviously you do speak some English. Most people don't actually understand what contracts mean (on both sides). Contracts are still enforced, based on what the contract says. The move-in data is proposed, not firm, and it even indicates what the charges are if your circumstances change and the dates have to change (whereas is their circumstances change, they wouldn't have a basis for charging extra). It also does say that there will be no refund if you change your mind. So the piece of paper says "No refund". The problem seems to be that there's an "agent" whose statements you relied on, who is ultimately responsible for this problem, and s/he implied that you could get a refund. It's not clear what kind of "agent" this is (is he working for you, or for the owners?). You'd have a somewhat different legal basis depending on which it is, but you could sue someone in either event, assuming that you could actually persuade the court that you were given false information which you relied on. The statement "they will refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is false; the statement "they may refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is true. If the latter was the statement that you relied on, then you knew (or should have known) that that isn't a promise, it's just a guess, and if you read the piece of paper you know that it's a promise with no basis. So I would say it comes down to establishing what promise was made to you. Arguing that the agent "made" you sign isn't going to get you anywhere (unless you can prove actual coersion).
The government of California has an extensive manual that says what you can and cannot do. To terminate a lease (a rental agreement for a year is a lease), there would have to be just cause for eviction (p. 65), such as failing to pay rent, violating terms of the agreement, cockfighting, and so on, and that does not include being a pain in the neck. Nor would the need to make repairs justify terminating a lease. On p. 79 they clarify that retaliatory eviction for exercising their legal rights is prohibited per California Civil Code 1942.5, and will result in fines. P. 35 ff. covers landlords entering: you may enter to make repairs, but must give 24 hour written notice (6 days if mailed), entering between 8am and 5pm business days, but you can also arrive at alternative times orally. If the local code-enforcers require you to do some modifications on the property, that is a separate matter and does not create a just cause for terminating the lease. For instance, if the electric service is not properly grounded and they require you to fix that, that does not constitute the structure "being destroyed". If the repairs make the building actually and certifiably uninhabitable, you might be on the hook for finding lodging for the tenant for the period of the repairs, so ask your attorney about that. Assuming that the tenant is not somehow responsible for the problem being repaired, then you will almost certainly have to keep the person for the duration of the lease.