This Note proposes a solution to this choice-of-law problem. Section I surveys the courts' response to Congress's silence and finds confusion and disarray. Section II argues that courts should apply the state law pertinent to arbitration unless that law places heavier burdens on arbitration contracts than on other contracts; where state law does discriminatorily burden arbitration, the courts should apply the pertinent state rules applicable to "any contract." It concludes that the "grounds . . . for the revocation of any contract," although determined as a matter of federal policy, are to be found in state law rather than in an independent federal law. Section III applies this general principle of choice to a series of illustrative state rules.
Michigan Law Review,
Incorporation of State Law Under the Federal Arbitration Act,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol78/iss8/5