That federal policy favors arbitration agreements is well-recognized. Indeed, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) specifically provides that, “a written provision in any … contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy arising thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction … shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract” Accordingly, all doubts must be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Arbitration provisions are valid, of course, only if they reflect the parties’ intent. What happens, however, if the parties clearly intended to arbitrate any disputes arising out of their relationship, but thereafter entered into a multitude of agreements which contained conflicting arbitration provisions? Should such differing provisions result in a finding that there was no final binding agreement between the parties regarding whether and how the arbitration should be conducted?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
