May 24, 2012

Parties to a Contract Take Heed: The Arbitration Clause Matters Too

Parties to a contract often include an arbitration clause based on a belief that arbitration is always cheaper and faster than litigation. That assumption is debatable. What is not up for debate, however, is that a poorly drafted arbitration clause will likely lead to a separate and messy dispute.

In drafting an arbitration clause, clarity is key. The parties should first decide whether they would like a broad or narrow provision. A broad clause typically will cover all disputes arising out of an agreement, while a narrow clause will limit the disputes that may be referred to arbitration. In either case, the court will favor the arbitration clause if a dispute should arise.

The Broad Clause: A Classic Approach

The classic, broad arbitration clause will provide for arbitration of all disputes "arising under or in connection with" a contract. A broad clause will not only encompass contract disputes, but may also include related tort or statutory claims. Oftentimes the arbitrators themselves will be called on to determine if they have jurisdiction over a claim.

Parties entering into multiple agreements to govern an ongoing business relationship must be especially cautious of consistency when including arbitration clauses in their contracts. A recent Illinois case, Casablanca Trax, Inc. v. Trax Record, Inc., is a prime example of how a broad clause in one agreement can lead to prolonged litigation. Casablanca involved a joint venture agreement (JVA) that required the parties to arbitrate "any dispute arising out of" the JVA. The parties also entered into related loan and security agreements containing no such clause. Sure enough, a dispute eventually arose regarding the related agreements, and the parties battled in the Circuit Court of Cook County to decide whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute. The Circuit Court held that the JVA arbitration clause did not extend to the related loan and security agreement. However, the Appellate Court later overturned that decision and sent the case back to the arbitrator. So, three years and a lot of wasted time and money later, the parties were back where they began.

The Narrow Clause: Proceed with Caution

A narrow clause only submits certain disputes to arbitration and may exclude some issues from arbitration. As is the case with broad clauses, any dispute over whether a topic falls under the umbrella of arbitration will be decided in favor of arbitrability.

When crafting a narrow arbitration clause, it pays to be wary of over-specificity or over-drafting. Too many layers in an arbitration clause may make it extremely difficult to arbitrate a dispute when one arises. That being the case, narrow clauses should be used sparingly.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Much Shelist is a full-service business law firm based in Chicago. Since our founding in 1970, and as we have grown to approximately 85 attorneys, we have nurtured a collaborative culture that emphasizes sophisticated, senior-level attention to client matters, combined with a collegial, creative atmosphere that allows us to deliver the highest level of service to every client. In addition, we are firmly committed to remaining independent, thus creating an environment of stability for our clients and our attorneys.

We serve as...

312-521-2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.