Seller
Your price
£140.00
The New Regulatory Framework for Consumer Dispute Resolution
Edited by
Pablo Cortes
Genres:
EU & European institutions, Arbitration, mediation & alternative dispute resolution, Consumer protection law
Trade or Institutional customer? Contact us about large order quotes.
Synopsis
Consumer out-of-court redress in the European Union is experiencing a significant transformation; indeed the current changes are the most important that have occurred in the history of the EU. This is due to the recent implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive 2013/11/EU and the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Regulation (EU) 2013/524. The Directive ensures the availability of quality ADR schemes and sets information obligations on
businesses, and the Regulation enables the resolution of consumer disputes through a pan European ODR platform.
The New Regulatory Framework for Consumer Dispute Resolution examines the impact of the new EU law in the field of consumer redress. Part I of the volume examines the new European legal framework and the main methods of consumer redress, including mediation, arbitration, and ombudsman schemes. Part II analyses the implementation of the ADR Directive in nine Member States with very different legal cultures in consumer redress, namely: Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal,
Spain, the Netherlands and the UK, as well as the distinct approach taken in the US. Part III evaluates new trends in consumer ADR (CDR) by identifying best practices and looking at future trends in the field. In particular, it offers a vision of the future of CDR which is more than a mere dispute resolution
tool, it poses a model on dispute system design for CDR, it examines the challenges of cross-border disputes, it proposes a strategy to promote mediation, and it identifies good practices of CDR and collective redress. The book concludes by calling for the mandatory participation of traders in CDR. New & Used
| Seller | Information | Condition | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | - | New | Out of Stock |
What Reviewers Are Saying
CONSUMER DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
SHOULD IT BE MANDATORY? CONSIDER THIS RANGE OF CURRENT THINKING AS BRITAIN LEAVES THE EUROPEAN UNION
An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers
Despite the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, Professor Pablo Cortes -- who edits this formidable compilation of current research on EU-based consumer dispute resolution -- is as optimistic as might be hoped for given the current climate of uncertainty as to whether Brexit will be hard won, or a soft touch. ‘Either way,’ he says, ‘I would not anticipate sudden changes in the field of consumer redress.’
Based on a range of research papers presented at a recent conference at the University of Leicester, this book from the Oxford University Press focuses on the impact --- and implications -- of new EU legislation on consumer dispute resolution.
The legal framework and the main methods of dispute resolution are examined in detail, including arbitration, mediation and ombudsman schemes following the recently implemented directive and regulation on, respectively, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Resolving disputes via a pan-European ODR platform sounds like a good thing, at least in some circumstances.
Basically, the editor’s view is that mediation of whatever kind should eventually evolve so that it becomes compulsory as part of the court process. But should it? The answer, as you would expect, is that there is no one answer. Opinions and practices vary across the EU and in non-EU jurisdictions.
An example is given from Italy where apparently, it can take an average of eight years for a civil case to reach the Italian Supreme Court, compared with approximately a year elsewhere. Here, mediation has been used to drive cases through the legal system. Certain changes introduced by recent legislation have enabled greater involvement by lawyers which, among other things, has meant greater acceptance of mediation by the legal profession.
It is also interesting to learn that mandatory mediation has become firmly established in the province of Ontario, Canada where, as it is applied to most civil cases, it has become difficult for litigants to opt out without judicial sanction.
By comparison with this extreme view, the approach to mediation in England and Wales is predictably pragmatic. You might conclude here that mediation is encouraged in certain cases, but not robustly -- and rarely if ever, is it compulsory.
The much more complicated realities are examined in this book, which brings together the research and considered opinions of over twenty contributors, who provide comparative views of consumer ADR across nine EU countries, plus -- there’s an additional chapter on consumer redress in the United States.
As the UK faces a somewhat uncertain future following Brexit (where hard or soft), the final part of this book should be of interest as it seeks to identify best practice in alternative dispute resolution and speculates on future trends.
Professor Cortes, of the University of Leicester School of Law, concludes by advocating ‘the mandatory participation of traders in CDR’. As the UK departs from the EU, this point many not be reached any time soon. Nonetheless, arbitrators, mediators and yes, lawyers will find this book not only an absorbing and enlightening read, but a useful and certainly voluminous source of references for further research.
The publication date is cited as at 2016.
SHOULD IT BE MANDATORY? CONSIDER THIS RANGE OF CURRENT THINKING AS BRITAIN LEAVES THE EUROPEAN UNION
An appreciation
Despite the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, Professor Pablo Cortes -- who edits this formidable compilation of current research on EU-based consumer dispute resolution -- is as optimistic as might be hoped for given the current climate of uncertainty as to whether Brexit will be hard won, or a soft touch. ‘Either way,’ he says, ‘I would not anticipate sudden changes in the field of consumer redress.’
Based on a range of research papers presented at a recent conference at the University of Leicester, this book from the Oxford University Press focuses on the impact --- and implications
The legal framework and the main methods of dispute resolution are examined in detail, including arbitration,
Basically, the editor’s view is that mediation of whatever kind should eventually evolve so that it becomes compulsory as part of the court process. But should it? The answer, as you would expect, is that there is no one answer. Opinions and practices vary across the EU and in non-EU jurisdiction
An example is given from Italy where apparently, it can take an average of eight years for a civil case to reach the Italian Supreme Court, compared with approximatel
It is also interesting to learn that mandatory mediation has become firmly established in the province of Ontario, Canada where, as it is applied to most civil cases, it has become difficult for litigants to opt out without judicial sanction.
By comparison with this extreme view, the approach to mediation in England and Wales is predictably pragmatic. You might conclude here that mediation is encouraged in certain cases, but not robustly -- and rarely if ever, is it compulsory.
The much more complicated realities are examined in this book, which brings together the research and considered opinions of over twenty contributors
As the UK faces a somewhat uncertain future following Brexit (where hard or soft), the final part of this book should be of interest as it seeks to identify best practice in alternative dispute resolution and speculates on future trends.
Professor Cortes, of the University of Leicester School of Law, concludes by advocating ‘the mandatory participatio
The publication date is cited as at 2016.
...Arbitrators, mediators and yes, lawyers will find this book not only an absorbing and enlightening read, but a useful and certainly voluminous source of references for further research. * Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor, Richmond Green Chambers *