The plaintiff, a seaman, argued that the arbitration provisions in the two contracts he signed contradicted each other and were therefore unenforceable. The Court disagreed and compelled arbitration of the dispute, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. Further, the Court found that there were no affirmative defenses, noting that at the arbitration-enforcement stage the only affirmative defense to arbitration is a defense that demonstrates that the arbitration agreement is "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed".