DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States

  • 투고 : 2017.07.02
  • 심사 : 2017.08.30
  • 발행 : 2017.09.01

초록

The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gee-Hong Kim, "Arbitration Agreement's Binding Effect on Non-Signatory," Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 17, No.3, 2007, p. 115.
  2. James Otis Rodner, Angelica Marcano, "Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Case of Multiple Contracts." Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2014. pp. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.16998/jas.2014.24.3.1
  3. Se-Won Suh, "Enforcement of Arbitral Agreement to Non-signatory in America," Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2008. 71-96.
  4. Matthew Berg, "Equitable Estoppel to Compel Arbitration in New York: A Doctrine to Prevent Inequity," Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.13, 2011. p.169.
  5. James M. Hosking, "The Third Party Non-Signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration: Doing Justice without Destroying Consent." Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Vol. 4, 2004. p. 469.
  6. Alexandra Anne Hui, "Equitable Estoppel and the Compulsion of Arbitration," Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 60, 2007, pp. 711-37.
  7. Clayton A. Morton, Tyler G. Doyle, "Equitable Estoppel in the Context of Claims for Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Has Its Texas Supreme Court Gone Too Far?" South Texas Law Review, Vol. 57, 2016. p.249.
  8. J. Douglas Uloth & J. Hamilton Rial, "Equitable Estoppel as a Basis for Compelling Non-signatories to Arbitrate," Rev. Litig. Vol. 21, 2002. pp. 593-599.
  9. Dwayne E. Williams, "Binding Non-signatories to Arbitration Agreements," Franchise Law Journal, Vol. 25. 2006. pp. 175-179.
  10. Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Government of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347 (2003).
  11. Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 690 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
  12. Collins v. Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1465 (M.D. Ga. 1998).
  13. Denney v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2005).
  14. Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2000).
  15. Hughes Masonry Co.,Inc. v. Greater Clark County School Building Corp. 659 F.2d 836, at 836-37 (7th Cir. 1981).
  16. Industrial Electronics Corp. of Wisconsin v. iPower Distribution Group, Inc., 215 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.2000).
  17. InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 146 (1st Cir. 2003).
  18. J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A., 863 F.2d 315, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1988).
  19. Life Techs. Corp. v. AB Sciex Pte. Ltd., 803 F. Supp. 2d 270, 273-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
  20. MAG Portfolio Consultant, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2001)
  21. McAllister Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 524 (2d Cir.1980);
  22. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995).
  23. McBro Planning & Dev. Co. v. Triangle Elec. Constr. Co., 741 F.2d at 342 (11th Cir. 1984).
  24. MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.1999).
  25. Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., 542 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2008).
  26. Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 1993).
  27. The Rice Company (Suisse), S.A. v. Precious Flowers Ltd. 523 F.3d 528, 536-37(5th Cir. 2008).
  28. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995).
  29. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES OF THE KOREAN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BOARD, $\S$ 21 (2016).
  30. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS $\S$ 302 (1981).