• 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
• /
• 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
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the issue of party autonomy in arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently from general contracts because its legal characteristics are not purely contractual by nature. For example, some legal scholars insist that an arbitration contract is more about an agreement on a process of dispute resolution than a creation of rights and obligations to avoid litigation. Party autonomy was discussed in diverse legal perspectives including contract of adhesion, VKI principle, and separability of arbitration clause. These three legal perspectives are discussed to set the legal relationship between party autonomy and protection of consumers in consumer arbitration. In addition, it was discussed how legal defects in the formation of an arbitration contract can influence the party autonomy. The legal defects that were discussed to analyze the relationship between arbitration agreement and party autonomy included misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, and undue influence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.151-171
• /
• 2010

This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권7호
• /
• pp.108-121
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This paper studies whether the CISG is applicable to the arbitration agreement when the validity of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue. To make the study clear, it limits the cases assuming that the governing law of the main contract is the CISG and the arbitration agreement is inserted in the main contract as a clause. Also, this paper discusses only substantive and formal validity of the arbitration agreement because the CISG does not cover the questions of the parties' capacity and arbitrability of the dispute. Design/methodology - This paper is based on scholarly writings and cases focusing on the principle of party autonomy, formation of contract and the doctrine of separability to discuss characteristic of arbitration agreement. In analyzing the cases, it concentrates on the facts and reasonings that show how the relative regulations and rules are interpreted and applied. Findings - The findings of this paper are; regarding substantive validity of arbitration agreement, the courts and arbitral tribunals consider general principles of law for the contract and the governing law for the main contract. In relation to formal validity of arbitration agreement, the law at the seat of arbitration or the law of the enforcing country are considered as the governing law in preference to the CISG because of the recognition and enforcement issues. Originality/value - This paper attempts to find the correlation between the CISG and the arbitration agreement. It studies scholars' writing and cases which have meaningful implication on this issue. By doing so, it can provide contracting parties and practitioners with some practical guidelines about the governing law for the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it can help them to reduce unpredictability that they may confront regarding this issue in the future.