English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

unless the necessmy corollmy is added-that a "generic" choice,of-law clause incorporating New York law is in itself an insufficient indicium of intent to exclude arbitral power with respect to punitive damages: And once the clause is set aside, there is nothing but "ambiguity"-or indeed, "silence'-whichcan be filled with the federal dcf8.ult rule. Now the Court inMastrobuono did not of course need to address the question whether its holding would equally apply in state courts. 218 The tenor of the opinion, however) deady suggests that the Court expected it would. ll1e simple remark, for example, that had there 211 Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 ("1995); see generally Rau, supra n.26 at 254-261. 212 The longstanding rule in New York, as in a number of other states, has been that an arbitral award of punitive damages is against "public policy" even though the parties had granted the arbitrators the power to award such damages-and even though on a similar cause of action a court or jury could impose them. Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 353 N.E.2d 793 (N.Y. 1976)("For centuries the power to punish has been a monopoly of the State, and not that of any private individual. The day is long past since barbaric man achieved redress by private punitive measures"). 213 Mastrobuono, supra n.2"11, 514 U.S. at 58. 214 ld. at 64. 215 Rau, supra n.26 at 256. 216 Mastrobuono, supra n.211, 514 U.S. at 62-63. m ld. at 62 & fn.8; the reference is to Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v., Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 u.s. 1' 24-25 (1983). 218 See Rau, supra n.26 at 257 ("The Supreme Court appeared to construe the contract de novo, and found that its conclusion accorded with 'the only decision-maker arguably entitled to deference'~the arbitrator. So no state court was involved at any time").

Everything You Really Need to Know About "Separability" in Seventeen Simple Propositions