This article examines the questions underpinning procedural contracts and discusses their history through examination of changes in franchise arbitration clauses. It also analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-A-Center and defends a blend of self-regulation and judicial oversight as the optimal form of regulation of procedural contractual freedom. The article finally discusses the Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen and argues that courts must construe the decision narrowly in order to reaffirm a deferential approach to and arbitrator’s gap-filling authority.
