[BizarroLand]

Bill of Rights Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

If they somehow refuse to perform the binding arbitration for whatever reason, then you have a constitutional right to take them to normal court. The Binding Arbitration system is an agreement to not go to court.

If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void. Since typically binding arbitration is favorable to the company by way of preventing emotionally motivated massive damages judgements, aka "nuclear" verdicts (like the totally justified McDonald's "hot coffee" verdict, for instance) they are still an alright deal for the average person because they typically can resolve things quickly and effectively, and the arbitrator isn't going to just side with the company when they did something wrong.

[singleshot_]

In bizarro land, maybe, but in the US if one side breaches, the agreement very much not null and void. It’s true that one party’s breach may act as a condition to the other’s remaining obligations, but the contract definitely does not disappear in a puff of smoke just because someone breached. The legal terms for disappearing in a puff of smoke, should you wish to know more, are “void” and “voidable,” generally speaking.

Points for thinking the hot coffee verdict was reasonable, though!

[JumpCrisscross]

> If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void

This isn’t true for any agreement not drafted with macaroni and crayons [1].

Trivial example: you not paying your rent per contract doesn’t nullify your lease.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

[BizarroLand]

If a company makes you sign a binding arbitration clause and then refuses to participate in binding arbitration, then you can probably sue them for breach of contract.

[FFP999]

> If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void

Severability clauses, which specifically say that nullification of a single part of the contract affects only that part, not the whole, are standard.

[tpmoney]

To my understanding severability clauses deal with legal findings of unenforcibility. And there are usually similar clauses that allow for a voluntary non-exercising of contractual rights to not void the contract (e.g. your landlord doesn’t collect December’s rent as a gift doesn’t mean you don’t still have to keep paying rent in general). I’m not aware of any standard contractual clauses that allow one to just voluntarily fail to perform their obligations and not also void the contract as a whole (barring provisions for repair of breach, but that’s not just unilaterally deciding you’re not going to do your contractual obligations)