Arbitration Of Settlement Agreements

11. September 2021 Allgemein

Of course, the parties were free to agree that the settlement agreement should be governed by different dispute settlement rules, but such an agreement should be explicitly registered and could not simply be inferred, unless the parties had explicitly raised the issue in their exchanges. In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that Article I, paragraph 1, of the New York Convention referred to „the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards“. Although the concept of „arbitral award“ is not defined by either the Convention or the Federal Arbitration Act transposing the Convention into national law, the Tribunal relied on general meaning and common sense, supplemented by the U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration (third-party) restatement, which contains definitions of key terms such as „arbitrations“, „arbitral tribunal“ and „arbitral tribunal“. The working group still needs to do considerable work to agree on a framework, starting with basic concepts: defining the scope and nature of the agreements to be covered; the development of a functional definition of the concept of international commercial mediation and conciliation; the establishment of form and substance requirements for IMSA; define the requirements of an appropriate procedure. Even if the Committee reaches consensus, many obstacles remain before a convention (or other instrument) is drafted and finally ratified. 11 To understand this seemingly strange result, you must bear in mind that both the arbitration clause and the procedural fee can be regarded as two ways of avoiding ex-post disputes. However, the arbitration clause is an ineffective means of saving a posteriori on legal costs, since it also concerns contracts that do not lead to a dispute and those that give rise to a dispute but have been settled. Rather, the procedural fee is a cost that the parties pay only in the event of a dispute and is not resolved. With a procedural fee, the parties accept more ex post litigation, as this allows them to save ex ante arbitration costs.

Unlike the infringement case, the results of which are clear, the contract case seems more difficult to manage. This is not entirely surprising, given that Coasean`s analysis implies that the parties, if they can, contract around the restrictions imposed by the legal system and can counteract the intended effect of the legislation. In section 2, we present the formal model; In section 3, we deduce the impact on unlawful acts and contracts; in section 4, we close. TriMarine had also argued before the Court of Appeal that it could have initiated arbitration proceedings, that it could have added it immediately and not been able to act otherwise than it had done so, and ended with the same arbitral award. The Ninth Circle acknowledged that this could be the case, but found that „the minimum formality required for a proceeding to justify an arbitration proceeding is not an empty ritual,“ and it refused to confirm the „arbitral award“ in question. . . .

Related articles