Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson

Arbitration: under the FAA, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator; (there are two types of validity challenges under §2: one “challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate,” and“[t]he other challenges the contract as a whole,” Buckeye, supra, at 444. Only the first is relevant to a court’s determination of an arbitration agreement’s enforceability, see, e.g., Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 403–404, because under §2 “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract,” Buckeye, supra, at 445) (U.S. S. Ct., 21.06.10, Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, J. Scalia).

Arbitrage : selon la loi fédérale sur l'arbitrage, lorsqu'une clause arbitrale inclut un accord par lequel l'arbitre détermine le caractère exécutoire de la clause, et lorsque l'une des parties conteste spécifiquement ce caractère exécutoire, la cour de district fédérale est compétente. Mais si l'une des parties conteste la validité de la clause arbitrale, cette contestation relève de la compétence de l'arbitre.