Arbitration Agreement Delegation Clause

Many arbitration clauses claim to do more than simply resolve certain disputes. They also claim to decide on certain – or all – issues of referees. These so-called delegation clauses raise the question: can an arbitration clause require an arbitrator – not a court – to decide whether there is a valid conciliation agreement between the parties and whether « the specific dispute [in the speech] falls within the material scope of that agreement »? Javitch, 315 F.3d to 624. In general, delegation clauses have gained enormous popularity over the past ten years and are becoming a benchmark in B2B contracts. The authors believe that the inclusion of a clear delegation clause in an arbitration agreement can protect the changing working parts of different sections of the 1996 Act. The parties may express their « clear and unequivocal » intention to give the arbitrator carte blanche to finally decide the nullity and non-existence issues of the arbitration agreement. Despite Archer`s arguments, the Tribunal did not support the « totally unfounded » exception within the FAA itself. Id. at 5-6. Nor was the Court persuaded that all efficiencies would be achieved by allowing the courts to preemptively resolve judicial issues that were duly delegated to an arbitrator. Although the « completely unfounded » exception provided resources in isolated cases, the Court of Justice found that authorizing the exception would only increase security litigation. Id. at 7.

In addition, the Tribunal considered that arbitrators were equally capable of eliminating applications for worthless arbitration. Id. at 7-8. However, the lessons learned from the two recent Missouri decisions are clear: if the delegation clause is not sufficiently clear or if a valid and specific challenge to the delegation provision itself can be applied, the Missouri courts will generally apply such a provision and thus allow the arbitrator to determine the arbitrator`s question. However, the Tribunal`s analysis did not end there. The Shivkov court still had to deal with the complainants` assertion that the corresponding provision of arbitration proves « a clear and unequivocal intention to delegate the case to the arbitrator ». The applicants relied on Ninth Circuit`s 2015 decision in The Brennan/Opus Bank case, in which the Tribunal found that « the inclusion of the AAA rules is clear and unequivocal evidence that the parties have accepted simplicity. » [2] But unlike Brennan, Shivkov, the relevant arbitration provisions do not contain the AAA rules, but simply required that any arbitration proceedings, if necessary, be carried out before AAA.

Category: Non classé
Comments closed.