UNITED STATES 233

30 - 08 - 1996

UNITED STATES 233

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, A.J. van den Berg (ed.), Vol. XXII (1997)
Jurisdiction United States
Summary

US 233. United States District Court, District of South Carolina, 30 August 1996

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
214-216 Field of application
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
218

The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.

Referral is mandatory
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)
228

Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.

Pre-award attachment and other provisional measures
UNITED STATES 233