Today, the Supremes hear argument on an interesting and important issue: arbitration clauses that are forced upon consumers, usually without their knowledge or consent. Here's the issue: You know the contract you sign with your cell phone company every two years or so? Ever read it? It contains a clause in it that says that, in the event a legal dispute arises between you and the company, it must be litigated by way of arbitration - you cannot take it to a court of law, before a jury. Arbitration clauses are very popular with the medical profession as well as many large corporations. Why? Because, typically, arbitrators will award much, much less in damages against the provider than a civil jury would. Throughout legal history, agreements such as these, when made part of the original contract between the consumer and provider, are called "contracts of adhesion." A contract of adhesion is a contract that you MUST agree to or there weill be no overall contract, i.e., the service you are requesting will not be provided. It is a clear, "take it or leave it" proposition. You won't agree to arbitration? Then take your business elsewhere. Contracts of adhesion are traditionally viewed in favor of the consumer and against the provider, because of the coercive nature of their inception. The case before the Supremes this day tests the legality of such contracts that require arbitration as a condition of entering into the contract to begin with. It's an interesting issue, and I will be anxious to see the outcome. How do you think it will come out? How would you prefer that it comes out, and why?