ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
In theory, arbitration is a consensual process; parties will only ever arbitrate where they agree to do so. In practice, however, many fine-print arbitration agreements are inserted in situations in which consumers and employees have no bargaining power. Moreover, arbitration clauses are frequently placed within sealed users' manuals within products, within lengthy click-through agreements on websites, and in other contexts in which meaningful consent is not realistic. Such agreements are generally divided into two types:
agreements which provide that, if a dispute should arise, it will be resolved by arbitration.
These will generally be normal contracts, but they contain an arbitration clause;
agreements which are signed after a dispute has arisen, agreeing that the dispute should be
resolved by arbitration (sometimes called a "submission agreement")
The former is the far more prevalent type of arbitration agreement. Sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration agreement. For example, in certain Commonwealth countries, it is possible to provide that each party should bear their own costs in a conventional arbitration clause, but not in a submission agreement.
In keeping with the informality of the arbitration process, the law is generally keen to uphold the validity of arbitration clauses even when they lack the normal formal language associated with legal contracts. Clauses which have been upheld include:
"arbitration in London - English law to apply"
"suitable arbitration clause"
"arbitration, if any, by ICC Rules in London"
The courts have also upheld clauses which specify resolution of disputes other than in accordance with a specific legal system. These include provision indicating:
that the arbitrators "must not necessarily judge according to the strict law but as a general rule ought chiefly to consider the principles of practical business"
"internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations"
Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration generally have a special status in the eyes of the law. For example, in disputes on a contract, a common defence is to plead Pleading the contract is void and thus any claim based upon it fails. It follows that if a party successfully claims that a contract is void, then each clause contained within the contract, including the arbitration clause, would be void. However, in most countries, the courts have accepted that:
a contract can only be declared void by a court or other tribunal; and
if the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause, then the proper forum to determine whether the contract is void or not, is the arbitration tribunal.
Arguably, either position is potentially unfair; if a person is made to sign a contract under duress Duress, and the contract contains an arbitration clause highly favourable to the other party, the dispute may still referred to that arbitration tribunal. Conversely a court may be persuaded that the arbitration agreement itself is void having been signed under duress. However, most courts will be reluctant to interfere with the general rule which does allow for commercial expediency; any other solution (where one first had to go to court to decide whether one had to go to arbitration) would be self defeating.
|