Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 371 of 2012
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1684 (2026)

Effect of agreement to arbitrate; nonwaivable provisions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT


Act 371 of 2012


691.1684 Effect of agreement to arbitrate; nonwaivable provisions.

Sec. 4.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.

    (2) Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not do any of the following:

    (a) Waive or agree to vary the effect of the requirements of section 5(1), 6(1), 8, 17(1) or (2), 26, or 28.

    (b) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 9 to notice of the initiation of an arbitration proceeding.

    (c) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 12 to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator.

    (d) Waive the right under section 16 of a party to an agreement to arbitrate to be represented by a lawyer at any proceeding or hearing under this act, but an employer and a labor organization may waive the right to representation by a lawyer in a labor arbitration.

    (3) A party to an agreement to arbitrate or arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of this section or section 3(1) or (3), 7, 14, 18, 20(4) or (5), 22, 23, 24, 25(1) or (2), 29, 30, or 31.

History: 2012, Act 371, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” MCL 691.1684(1). The parties may not waive or vary the effect of MCL 691.”
20230112_C359710_39_359710.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “However, MCL 691.1684(1) provides in relevant part that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “3 MCL 691.1684(1) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “3 MCL 691.1684(1) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Raghuram Elluru Md v. Great Lakes Plastic Reconstructive & Hand (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “But there is an important exception to this rule: MCL 691.1684(1) provides that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Raghuram Elluru Md v. Great Lakes Plastic Reconstructive & Hand (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “But there is an important exception to this rule: MCL 691.1684(1) provides that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Vascular Mgmt. Servs. of Novi LLC v. Emg Partners LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “See MCL 691.1684(1) (“[T]he parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Kateri Kilpatrick v. Lansing Cmty. Coll. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “1686(2); but see MCL 691.1684(1) (permitting the parties to vary the act’s requirements as permitted by law); Rent-A-Center, West, Inc v Jackson, 561 US 63 , 69 n 1; 130 S Ct 2772 ; 177 L Ed 2d 403 (2010) (recognizing that the question of arbitrability can be delegated to the…”
Theater Grp. 3 LLC v. Secura Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 691.1684(2)(a). Thus, a post-arbitration challenge to a previous ruling by the trial court is not permitted, because such a ruling renders the submission to arbitration revocable in violation of MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1684(1) — 8 cases
20230112_C359710_39_359710.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “However, MCL 691.1684(1) provides in relevant part that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “3 MCL 691.1684(1) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Universal Academy v. Berkshire Dev. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “3 MCL 691.1684(1) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Raghuram Elluru Md v. Great Lakes Plastic Reconstructive & Hand (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “But there is an important exception to this rule: MCL 691.1684(1) provides that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
Raghuram Elluru Md v. Great Lakes Plastic Reconstructive & Hand (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “But there is an important exception to this rule: MCL 691.1684(1) provides that “the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1684(2)(a) — 2 cases
Mbk Constructors Inc v. Lisa Lipcaman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 691.1684(1). The parties may not waive or vary the effect of MCL 691.”
Theater Grp. 3 LLC v. Secura Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 691.1684(2)(a). Thus, a post-arbitration challenge to a previous ruling by the trial court is not permitted, because such a ruling renders the submission to arbitration revocable in violation of MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1684(2)(b) — 2 cases
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1684(3) — 2 cases
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
Dom. Unif. Rental v. A2 Auto Ctr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 691.1684. The rental agreement in this case does contain provisions which might give the arbitrator power to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement and related issues.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.