US 127

14 - 02 - 1992

US 127

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, A.J. van den Berg (ed.), Vol. XVIII (1993)
Jurisdiction United States
Original full text Full text decision US 127
Summary

US 127. United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 14 February 1992

Related topics
201

The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.

Scope of arbitration agreement
217

The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.

Referral to arbitration in general
220

The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

"Null and void", etc.
221

The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.

Law applicable to "Null and void", etc. (for formal validity and applicable law, see Art. II, ¶204)
223

The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.

Arbitrability (see also Art. V(2) sub ground a. "arbitrability", ¶519)
227

Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.

Concurrent court proceedings ("indivisibility")
US 127