One might think that if a contract is not applicable, a party cannot be forced to play a mediating role in the context of that contract, since the compromise clause is part of the unenforceable contract. That was the law until 1967. But in 1967, the Supreme Court held, in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood- Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, that if a party claimed that a contract it had signed was induced by fraud, that party had to assert its right in arbitration proceedings. In other words, even if the entire contract (in this case a commercial lease) was invalid, the compromise clause survived because, according to the court, the promises of conciliation were separable from the rest of the contract. This operation is called the „separation system.“ The GFPB study shows that arbitration has largely supplanted the civil justice system for most important transactions of ordinary people. Another question is whether that is a good thing. Researchers debate whether consumers are better off in arbitration than in court.