Broad Arbitration Agreement

Development of narrow arbitration clauses: Given the strong presumption in favour of arbitration, the utmost care should be taken to apply the arbitration clause to certain narrowly defined types of disputes. Parties should include explicit language that specifically identifies the nature of the disputes on which they agree. The parties may also wish to express their intention that the arbitration clause be narrow, that the arbitration agreement covers only the categories of disputes specifically listed, and that the parties do not intend to arbitrate legal, tortious or other claims that merely touch on or relate to the Agreement. First, the wording of the arbitration agreement provided that claims arising « from the provision of services by the facility, the licence agreement, the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and performance of the agreement … », were to be submitted to the arbitrator … The court concluded that « of this » concerned only the hosting agreement. Okay, I had to read the article myself twice. The Court of Appeal then generally concluded that under the New York Convention and the precedent of the Supreme Court and the 11th District applying the Convention, there is a strong presumption in favour of freely negotiated provisions on contractual choice of law and choice of jurisdiction, and that this presumption applies with particular force in the field of international trade. The Court then concluded that U.S. courts have consistently held that provisions covering « all disputes arising out of or relating to an agreement, » as in this case, must be interpreted broadly. The tribunal concluded that the arbitration provision in question covered all of Northrop`s claims and that even tort claims about quantum gains, tortious interference and unjust enrichment formed the core of the agreement between the parties and fell directly within the scope of the arbitration provision. The court ruled that Northrop could not attempt to circumvent the explicit terms of the agreement it had signed by making tort claims in equity rather than breach of contract. In a labor dispute, the Connecticut District Court dissected an arbitration clause to determine whether its scope was « broad, » leading to a presumption of arbitration of ancillary issues, or « narrow, » in which case collateral issues would generally not be subject to arbitration. The court ultimately concluded that the clause in question was « broad, » but the issue was narrow, as the court`s finding showed that « reasonably similar » clauses had been classified as « narrow » by other Second Circuit courts.

Fair estoppel. This exception applies where the non-signatory asserts claims that are « dependent on or inextricably linked to the contractual obligations underlying the agreement containing the arbitration clause ». That was not the case in the present case, since the plaintiffs did not rely on the terms of the lease agreement between the employer and U-Haul to assert their claims. Arbitration Series – Part 3 of 3: When drafting an arbitration clause, particular attention should be paid to the language that describes the scope of the disputes to be arbitrated. Unless the parties intend to arbitrate all disputes that may affect or relate to the Agreement, the arbitration clause should contain language that is express and closely describes the scope of the disputes to be arbitrated. In determining whether a particular dispute falls within the scope of a contractual arbitration clause, the courts first decide whether the arbitration clause is broad or narrow. Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC v. Medco Heath Solutions, Inc., 567 F.3d 1191, 1196 (Cir. 10, 2009). « Under a narrow arbitration clause, a dispute is submitted to arbitration only if it relates to a matter that prima facie falls within the scope of the clause, and ancillary matters will generally not fall within its jurisdiction. » Id., at 1262.

On the other hand, if an arbitration clause is broad, « a presumption of arbitrability and arbitration arises even in a minor case […] whether the alleged request relates to matters relating to the drafting of the contract or the rights and obligations of the parties arising from that request. Id. The exact wording of an arbitration clause is important and must be carefully considered. The Court of Appeal also distinguishes between the arbitrator`s power to deny the winning party`s lawyers` fees and the court`s error in denying attorneys` fees incurred in post-engagement proceedings. Unable to « find an authority that deals with exactly analogous circumstances, » the Court of Appeal ruled on a first-impression case in Jensen v. U-Haul Co. of California, E065887 (4/2 12/11/17) (Codrington, McKinster, Slough). The case involves « an attempt to enforce an arbitration clause in an equipment lease against the unsigned employee of the party who rented the equipment. » The decision rejected Citibank`s claims that a determination of unenforceability would harm the FAA. First, on the basis of the analysis summarised above, the General Court held that Citibank`s position that an application for a public injunction should be considered analogous to an application for collective certification, since both involve a representative action. Second, the Citibank tribunal did not agree that allowing the plaintiff`s other arbitrable claims to arbitration would harm the FAA. He noted that « case law establishes that a stay of proceedings relating to indisputable claims is appropriate until arbitration for arbitral claims is completed ». On this point, the court stated that if the parties have agreed to arbitrate certain claims, the arbitration of those claims « should not be spared from any proceeding required by the invalidation of the waiver in respect of public applications for injunctions on which the parties have not agreed. » The second District Committee, Division 2, dismissed the case and referred it to arbitration.

Lord. Vilchez was not a « third party » but an AutoZone agent who was entitled to the benefits of the arbitration agreement. (Thomas v. Perry, 200 Cal.App.3d 510, 516 (1988); 24 Hour Fitness, Inc.c. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 119, 1210 (1998).) The trial judge dismissed AutoZone`s request to force arbitration based on the theory that co-defendant Jose Vilchez, who was allegedly an autoZone agent and the plaintiff`s immediate superior, was in fact a « third party, » allowing for conflicting decisions. Thus, the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of U-Haul`s request to force arbitration. In upholding the lower court`s decision, the Court of Appeal first reaffirmed the general rule that arbitration agreements are covered by the Convention if four conditions of jurisdiction are met: « Arise from, » « in connection with, » or « in connection with »: « Arbitration clauses recommended by the American Arbitration Association (« AAA ») require arbitration for « any controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement; or their violation. Ce libellé était généralement interprété comme une clause d’arbitrage générale. C &L Enters., Inc. c. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S.

411, 415 (2001); Oracle Am., Inc. c. Myriad Group A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1071 (Cir. 9, 2013); Petrofac, Inc. c. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 687 F.3d 671, 674 (5. Cir. 2012); Fallo c.

High-Tech Inst., 559 F.3d 874, 876 (8. Cir. 2009); Qualcomm Inc. c. Nokia Corp., 466 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Terminix Int’l Co. gegen Palmer Ranch Ltd. .