• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2003

Since new Korean arbitration law was modeledafter UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration Law, the judicial review on the arbitral award is at most limited to fundamental procedural justice. Thus, drafting valid arbitration clause is paramount important to enforce arbitral awards in the new legal environment. A losing party in arbitral process would often claim of the invalidity of arbitration agreement to challenge the arbitral award. Especially, the validity of arbitration clause in the construction contracts is often challenged in Korean courts. This is because the construction contracts usually include selective arbitration agreement in multi-tiered dispute resolution clause that is drafted ambiguous or uncertain. In this paper selective arbitration agreement means a clause in a contract that provides that party may choose arbitration or litigation to resolve disputes arising out of the concerned contract. On the hand multi-tiered dispute resolution clause means a clause in a contract that provides for distinct stages such as negotiation, mediation or arbitration. However, Korean courts are not in the same position on the validity of selective arbitration agreementin multi-tiered dispute resolution clause. Some courts in first instance recognized its validity on the ground that parties still intend to arbitrate in the contract despite the poor drafted arbitration clause. Other courts reject its validity on the ground that parties did not intend to resort to arbitration only with giving up their right to sue at courts to resolve their disputes by choosing selective arbitration agreement. Several cases are recently on pending at the Supreme Courts, which decision is expected to yield the court's position in uniform way. Having reviewed recent Korean courts' decisions on validity and applicability of arbitration agreement, this article suggests that courts are generally in favor of arbitration system It is also found that some courts' decisions narrowly interpreted the concerned stipulations in arbitration law despite they are in favorable position to the arbitration itself. However, most courts in major countries broadly interpret arbitration clause in favor of validity of selective arbitration agreement even if the arbitration clause is poorly drafted but parties are presume to intend to arbitrate. In conclusion it is desirable that selective arbitration agreement should be interpreted favorable to the validity of arbitration agreement. It is time for Korean courts to resolve this issue in the spirit of UNCITRAL model arbitration law which the new Korean arbitration law is based on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.157-184
• /
• 2004

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable trading performance. There are many problems such as problems of enforcement of arbitral award and the uncertainty of legal system in PRC. Therefore, the Korean trading companies with Chinese companies should be more concerned with mediation. It's because mediation are more likely to be effective than arbitration and litigation to resolve disputes with chinese companies. This article investigates some differences of mediation between ROK and PRC, and suggests the following ways to resolve dispute. First, the Korean companies should utilize the mediation in small claim but arbitration in big claim. Second, Write a contract and insert mediation clause in BCC or the standard arbitration clause in KCAB. Third, the companies should be more concerned with prevention of dispute than dispute resolution. In conclusion, to expand mediation system into an effective dispute resolution system, The Korean Dispute Resolution Center should be established.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.115-151
• /
• 2003

As international trade and commerce increases among the nations in the world, it is inevitable fact that disputes rise as well. As these transactions grow more complex, it becomes increasingly important to resolve disputes and conflicts as quickly, efficiently and formatively as possible. In practical commercial affairs, we call a variety of international commercial troubles ‘trade claims’, Trade claims consist of disputes, controversies, or differences which may arise between the parties, out of, or in relation to, or in connection with their contracts, or for the breach thereof. Trade claim should be instituted promptly, otherwise it may be barred by prescription. Also, the other party will not accept the claim by reason of loss of evidence. In this connection, it should be noted that how long the claim prescription would continue. Trade claim should be settled reasonably and amicably between the parties concerned. And if both parties do not reach an agreement through their negotiation, then the claim shall be settled finally by binding arbitration. For the purpose of managing trade claim and arbitration, the trading parties insert in their contracts claim and arbitration clauses. This paper will examine some judicial precedents concerning claim clauses which are closely connected with a time limit of the claim It will also review some famous precedents rendered by the competent courts in connection with the wording, scope and implied renewal of arbitration clauses.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.49-69
• /
• 2008

This study is to analyze the case law on the disputes of the ex-im contract of steel bar from Yugoslav to Egypt, for which awards were made by the ICC Arbitration Court, trying to find out the characteristic approach of the tribunal toward arbitration case dealing with socialistic country, Yugoslav and Islamic Egypt. An Egyptian importer and an Yugoslavian Exporter concluded a contract, with an option to purchase an additional quantity. for the steel bar. The importer exercised this option as provided in the contract. But the exporter refused to honor the option, due to the fact that the world market price for the steel bar has gone up. As a result, the importer had to purchase the steel bar as a replacement from a Rumanian company at the price higher than the original contract. And it has initiated arbitration under the arbitration clause at the ICC Arbitration Court to claim compensation for the loss due to the price difference. CISG and ULIS were closely studied along with the Yugoslav Law to determine whether the exporter could be exempted from the liability to damages. But the tribunal denied to accept the exporter's contention. The tribunal decided that the importer was entitled to damages due to the exporter's failure to deliver the additional quantity of goods at the original price. It was due to the fact that the price increase was not extremely sudden & high enough to exceed a reasonable entrepreneurial risk and also could be taken into account when concluding the contract.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

2000년 이후 한-인도간 교역규모가 증대함에 따라, 양국간 분쟁 또한 증가가 예상된다. 국내기업이 인도기업과 분쟁을 효율적이면서 효과적으로 해결하기 위하여는 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결방법(Alternative Dispute Resolution; ADR)에 대한 이해가 중요하다. 인도의 대체적 분쟁해결제도의 특징으로는 첫째, 협상, 조정(conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat) 및 중재에 의한 해결방법이 주요 ADR제도이고, 둘째, 인도는 중재 조정법에 의하여 조정(conciliation)에 관한 별도의 규정을 마련하여 강제력을 부여하고 있으며, 셋째, 조정제도는 크게 conciliation, mediation 및 Lok Adalat로 구분할 수 있다. 한국기업들이 인도기업과 분쟁을 해결하는 방법을 다음과 같이 제언하고자 한다. 첫째, 향후 인도기업과 투자나 거래를 하고자 하는 한국기업들은 ADR제도를 활용하여 분쟁을 해결하여야 하며, 둘째, 이를 위해 인도의 각 ADR제도에 대한 지식을 사전에 습득하고 각 분쟁 상황에 맞는 유용한 ADR방법을 선택하여야 한다. 셋째, 협상력을 강화하여야 하며, 넷째, 인도의 공공분야에 직접투자를 할 경우에는 Lok Adalat 제도를 숙지하여 이에 대하여 적극적으로 대처하여야 하며, 마지막으로 분쟁이 발생한 경우 해결방법을 찾는 것보다 분쟁을 예방하는 것이 중요하다 하겠다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.