Which part of the Holy Bible? The Old Testament or the New? If the latter, then Jesus says "turn the other cheek," which pretty much lets the offending party get away with what they want. However, if the former governs, then it's "an eye for an eye" time. This could get messy. Save me Jebus!

First. Really second.

turrible. i'd like to see whomever wrote that clause get run over by a drunk family member.

While I find this an interesting and innovative choice of law, and have every respect for the Bible--how on earth would this pan out? I mean, there really isn't much in the Bible about construing software agreements, since, well, they simply weren't part of the historical setting for the Bible. And the Bible, as a religious tex, is grounded in morality, while some things about contracts, particularly software contracts, I imagine, have little to nothing to do with morality per se, and so to construe them in terms of right and wrong would be difficult, at best. Could you void the whole contract, for example, because it did not comply with the Bible?

I've seen Jewish law used as "choice of law" in New York for disputes between Jewish businesses. (I'm atheist). But, from a legal perspective, it's a pretty Kosher system. So, if the Church wants to set up their own arbitration system, it should be fine, as long as it does not conflict with non-derogatible laws.

the judge could decide to break the cd-rom containing the software in half to see which litigant will yield.

This all makes sense. The bible is of course the higher law. Why not use it?

2:39 -- Note the multiple references to "Christian". That would be New Testament.

WHTFH,

Not sure if you know this, but the Old Testament is also part of the Christian Bible.

Wait, should the "John 3:16" guy should serve as arbitrator then?

Have you really seen Jewish Law applied to disputes in New York courts? I was under the impression that New York courts refuse to do so, on First Amendment grounds.

Nu:

I believe the common procedure is to refer the case to the appropriate Beit Din (Rabinical court) for adjudication.

3:05 - Why? Isn't that freedom of contract? I don't think it would be an unconstitutional advancement of religion.

The principles are AS APPLIED by the Institute of Christian Conciliation. I think that means they're just mandating who will mediate in case of a dispute. The ICC will decide how to apply Biblical principles to any given situation.

I'm willing to bet one of the parties to this agreement is a Christian "based" company.

As for the Bible, it has lots of dispute resolution guidelines in there, which I'm guessing can and have been either directly applicable, or extrapolated into rules that are applicable to both general and specific dispute resolution principles.

As well, the Bible gives many guidelines that can be used as equitable principles that can serve as an overriding dispute resolution framework.

I believe New York courts have determined that they will not be entangled in interpretation of Jewish law, and have refused to hear issues that required them to do so. I do not recall specific citations.

I continue to be awed. I wonder how this works with an "act of god" clause. Can God smite a bill of lading?

i kind of want to violate this just so I can refuse mediation on grounds that I am jewish and don't accept the new testament. Can someone tell us what software it is, or would that violate the anonymity rules of ATL?

it is the open source network of the lord thy god. when you open the wrapper, your face melts off like in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

But...I thought that, um, that was taken care of by the secular courts...like the um, Constitution said, or something.

I agree with 3:59 -- what software comes with that license agreement? I want to make sure I don't buy it by accident and bind myself to mediation by this group. If I'm an agnostic and refuse to accept the Bible as anything other than an interesting (and frequently poorly translated) historical document of questionable accuracy, how can I engage in a successful mediation based on biblical principles? Also, the clause does not say whether the mediation is binding, if not, then there is a problem with the choice of law because a court cannot base a decision on biblical principles. I believe the "Jewish law" cases described in prior comments are treated like binding arbitration clauses -- instead of AAA or JAMS, the neutral is the rabbinical court. Is the ICC the same thing for Christians?

Lateral (3:01):

Unless Jesus has forgiven him for his sins, the John 3:16 guy be not be available to serve as an arbitrator.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a971107.html

Man, these evangelicals are getting a bit out of hand already. I kind of liked them for a while -- with the whole voting republican for the wrong reasons thing -- but now they're just annoying the heck out of me.

I imagine this type of clause would be unenforceable, even as a binding arbitration clause for public policy reasons. We wouldn't want binding agreements to force unwilling parties to subject themselves to faith-based decisions of admittedly biased arbitrators.

4:08 - you are correct regarding the Jewish law issue being akin to arbitration - see, e.g., www.bethdin.org. The concept of Beit Din (or Beth Din) has been a part of Jewish law for many centuries. The legitimacy of these tribunals in secular society by the concet of dina d'malchuta dina (literally, the law of the land is the law) that incorporates observance of the secular law in all matters not in direct conflict with the Torah (which I would assume the vast majority of business matters would not). It is also worth mentioning that the Talmud includes hundreds of pages of discussions about proper resolution of business matters. Also, unless I am mistaken, a Beit Din would only address disputes between two Jews.

I can't speak to whether this particular Christian tribunal would be in essence the same thing as a Beit Din, since this is the first I have heard of such things. Regardless, I don't think I necessarily have a problem with the clause, as long as both sides to the contract agree to such a thing.

I am pretty sure that the Muslim world has similar tribunals (I also note that several large firms employ attorneys specialized in the area of Islamic finance).

Not sure why this is a big deal. If the parties agree to it, why interfere?

How is this different than the Rent-a-judge phenomenon where parties to a contract provide which judge would oversee any post execution proceedings?

Both are wacky.

What about the appellate process... I'm not sure the Christian Institute is capable of rendering a final judgment.

How is this different than the Rent-a-judge phenomenon where parties to a contract provide which judge would oversee any post execution proceedings?

Both are wacky.

What about the appellate process... I'm not sure the Christian Institute is capable of rendering a final judgment... lest they be the last to enter heaven, of course.

5:15 -- I agree with you that this should be binding on the parties if there was an expression of assent. If we follow Judge Easterbrook's reasoning in Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), this requires that the customer have an opportunity to review the license and to return the software without penalty if he does not agree with the binding arbitration clause (i.e. delays contract formation to permit the customer to truly assent to the license's terms).

However, if this is a contract of adhesion, with no real opportunity to reject these terms, then this clause should not be enforceable as against public policy, or as unconscionable.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Presumably, the parties entered into the contract with the hope of obtaining profit of some sort.

Therefore, under Biblical principles the contract is presumptively void.

Which translation of the bible will be used? I'm curious to know whether I should start studying up on my Aramaic.

For those who are interested in this issue, see Michael C. Grossman, Note: Is This Arbitration?: Religious Tribunals, Judicial Review, and Due Process, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 169 (2007), available at
http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/index.cfm?article_id=849

This is the abstract from the article:

Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed. A significant problem arises in FAA and UAA review of religious panels, however, because the religious question doctrine prohibits civil courts from reviewing religious questions. Superficially, the prohibition does not seem to affect court review because disputes often appear wholly secular, stemming out of contract, employment, and corporate law issues. This Note argues, however, that religious issues permeate the entirety of religious tribunal proceedings, which inevitably leads to substantial restrictions on judicial review. It analyzes judicial doctrines that courts employ when confronting religious disputes and argues that these doctrines cannot prevent the restrictions on FAA and UAA review. This Note posits that this further limitation diminishes the standard of review far beyond that required by either the FAA or UAA and gives rise to procedural due process violations. The Note proposes that to maintain the viability of treating religious panels as statutory arbitrations, courts must be willing to engage in a minimum level of religious question review, and argues that courts can engage constitutionally in such inquiry for purposes of FAA and UAA review.

I believe New York courts have determined that they will not be entangled in interpretation of Jewish law, and have refused to hear issues that required them to do so. I do not recall specific citations.

Exampl;e- Family Courts will not adjudicate whether a husband wrongfully witheld a get (sp?) in connection with a dovorce.

I have seen it used before in agreements among "Christian" enterprises. The conciliation organization is a business located here in Colorado that has its own ADR rules (opening with prayer, etc.). When you realize that it's a bunch of extreme right wing folks trying to keep things in the family for a price, it doesn't sound so much like the state Senator in today's news who brought claims against God him/herself.

Well, I guess now I must seek enforcement AND salvation....

Should've just identified the mediating body and that it will apply that mediating body's principles/process.

4:04 -

The solution to such shrinkwrap licenses is the same as the movie:
When you buy the software, open it with your eyes closed. Throw out any "paper" or "wrappers" with your eyes closed. Then, only the people who open the software with their eyes open will have their faces melted off.

As an aside, what if this became common practice?

What about a binding arbitration clause to be handled by the KKK? Would that be enforceable. I don't particularly see much difference.

not worthy of comment let the 12 resolve justice at what price of spirit or common sence.