Is ADR the Superior Mechanism for Consumer Contractual Disputes?—an Assessment of the Incentivizing Effects of the ADR Directive

Abstract

The European legislator has adopted a Directive on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which sets out minimum requirements for ADR entities throughout the European Union (EU). From a law and economics point of view, law enforcement is crucial to induce compliance. ADR can be viewed as a means of strengthening consumer law enforcement, leading to compliance at lower costs. Certain conditions, however, have to be fulfilled to exploit the benefits of an ADR mechanism successfully. The goal of this paper is to look into these conditions more specifically and critically assess the ADR Directive in light of these requirements. It is divided into a theoretical section and the analysis of the EU Directive. The main concern results to be the fact that ADR boards with very strong links to traders are allowed under the Directive. When looking at the composition of the bodies, a complicated compromise was enacted that is able to impede the working of such ADR bodies. Given that the Directive aims at minimum harmonization, Member States have the opportunity to provide for a better design in their respective countries responding to this main concern and other critical points identified in the paper.

Enforcement against contract violation in Chinese construction projects: impacts of trust and perceived intentionality

“…Extant studies related to contract enforcement could be classified into two areas: a) how to prevent contract violations before they happen (Radygin and Entov, 2003, Guo and Jolly, 2008, Weber, 2015, and b) the response to one party's violation of contractual obligation (Antia and Frazier, 2001, Antia and Fisher, 2006, Stoyanova, 2009, Suzor, 2012, Mooi and Gilliland, 2013. This research focuses on violated party's reactions after contractual breaches.…”

“…In this body of work, researchers identified the antecedents of contract enforcement (Gilliland and Bello, 2002, Antia and Fisher, 2006, Jin et al, 2013, the different types of contract enforcement (Noorderhaven, 1992, Stoyanova, 2009, Suzor, 2012, Weber, 2015, Johnson and Sohi, 2016, and the consequences of contract enforcement (Mooi and Gilliland, 2013). Only a few studies explore the mechanisms of how antecedents influence enforcement.…”

Rectifying Consumer Protection Law and Establishing of a Consumer Court in Indonesia

“…According to the literature, ADR has evolved widely. This system has also been widely accepted by the European Union (Weber 2015 ). The background of the formation of the CDRB was the tendency of the community to be reluctant to be cancelled in court due to social and financial imbalances between consumers and business actors (Kusumaningrum 2013 ).…”

Influence of Prior Ties on Trust in Contract Enforcement in the Construction Industry: Moderating Role of the Shadow of the Future

“…The area of contract breach enforcement is underdeveloped compared to the other three areas (Mooi and Gilliland, 2013). Contract enforcement can be considered in two ways, including the means ensuring that contract terms can be complied with, such as setting pre-conditions, like sound institutional environments, politics and law for example, for efficient exchanges (Aboal, Noya and Rius, 2014, BenitoArrunada, 2001, Guo and Jolly, 2008, Radygin and Entov, 2003, Weber, 2015, and the corrective actions that are aimed at remedying the situation after contract breach (Antia and Fisher, 2006, Antia and Frazier, 2001, Mooi and Gilliland, 2013, Stoyanova, 2009, Suzor, 2012. In the literature on corrective actions, on which this article focuses, researchers have discussed the antecedents of contract enforcement (Antia and Fisher, 2006, Gilliland and Bello, 2002, Jin, Tangpong, Hung and Johns, 2013, the different types of contract enforcement (Noorderhaven, 1992, Stoyanova, 2009, Suzor, 2012, Weber, 2015, and the consequences of contract enforcement (Mooi and Gilliland, 2013).…”