drafting dispute resolution clausescdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/library/2013/02/26/poli... ·...

44
www.adr.org Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses A PRACTICAL GUIDE Amended and Effective September 1, 2007 Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc. No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Upload: others

Post on 23-May-2020

23 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

www.adr.org

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses

A p r A c t i c A l G u i d e

Amended and effective September 1, 2007

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

This booklet is intended to assist parties in drafting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clauses. With that in mind, and in addition to the suggested clauses, the committee compiled a checklist of considerations for the drafter, as well as examples of supplemental language which go beyond the basic clauses. Users will benefit from the commentary throughout the text which helps to identify points of interest. Parties with questions regarding drafting an AAA clause should contact their local AAA office. Offices are listed on the AAA’s website, www.adr.org.

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

I. AChecklistfortheDrafter 4

II. MajorFeaturesofArbitration 5

AWrittenAgreementtoResolveDisputes bytheUseofImpartialArbitration 5

InformalProcedures 6

ImpartialandKnowledgeableNeutrals toServeasArbitrators 6

FinalandBindingAwards thatareEnforceableinaCourt 6

III. ClausesApprovedbytheAAA forGeneralCommercialUse 7

Arbitration 7

Negotiation 10

Mediation 11

Large,ComplexCases 11

IV. ClausesforUseinSpecificContexts 13

A. ClausesforUseinInternationalDisputes 13

B. ClausesforUseinConstructionDisputes 16

C. ClausesforUseinEmploymentDisputes 18

D. ClausesforUseinPatentDisputes 20

V. OtherProvisionsThatMightBeConsidered 22

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

A. SpecifyingaMethodofSelection andtheNumberofArbitrators 23

B. ArbitratorQualifications 25

C. LocaleProvisions 26

D. Language 26

E. GoverningLaw 27

F. ConditionsPrecedenttoArbitration 27

G. PreliminaryRelief 28

H.Consolidation 29

I. DocumentDiscovery 30

J. Depositions 31

K. DurationofArbitrationProceeding 32

L. Remedies 32

M.“Baseball”Arbitration 33

N. ArbitrationWithinMonetaryLimits 34

O. AssessmentofAttorneys’Fees 35

P. ReasonedOpinion AccompanyingtheAward 36

Q. Confidentiality 36

R. Appeal 37

S. Mediation-Arbitration 38

T. StatuteofLimitations 38

U. DisputeResolutionBoards 39

V. MassTorts 39

Conclusion 40

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Introduction

Everyyear,millionsofbusinesscontractsprovideformediationandarbitrationaswaysofresolvingdisputes.AlargenumberofthesecontractsprovideforadministrationbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociation(AAA),apublic-service,not-for-profitorganizationofferingabroadrangeofconflictmanagementprocedures.AAAservicesareavailablethroughofficeslocatedinmajorcitiesthroughouttheUnitedStatesandDublin,Ireland,aswellasthrougharrangementswithotherinstitutionsworldwide.Hearingsmaybeheldatlocationsconvenientfortheparties.Inaddition,theAAAprovideseducationandtraining,producesspecializedpublicationsandconductsresearchonout-of-courtdisputesettlement.

Typically,theparties’agreementtomediateorarbitrateiscontainedinafuture-disputesclauseintheircontract;theclausemayprovidethatanydisagreementwillberesolvedunderthemediationorarbitra-tionrulesoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.

TheAmericanArbitrationAssociationisknownforthehighqualityofitspanelsofmediatorsandarbitrators,includingaLarge,ComplexCasePanel.AspecialAAAinternationalcenter,theInternationalCentreforDisputeResolutionSM,administerscasesaroundtheglobeandanywhereintheU.S.

Thefirstsectionofthisbookletcontainsabriefchecklistofsomeofthemoreimportantelementsapractitionershouldkeepinmindwhendraftingoradoptinganydisputeresolutionclause,nomatterhowbasic.Thesecondsectiondescribesthemajorfeaturesofarbitration,andthethirdsectionprovidesaseriesofclausesthattheAAAfeelsareappropriateforuseinageneralcommercialsettingandwhichmeetdifferentneedsandconcernsinsuchacontext.ThefourthsectioncontainsaseriesofclausesthattheAAAdeemsappropriateforuseintheparticularcontextsofinternationaldisputes,constructiondisputes,employmentdisputes,andpatentdisputes.ThefinalsectionconsistsofexamplesofsupplementallanguagewhichgobeyondthebasicdisputeresolutionclausesinSectionsIIIandIV.WhiletheAAA

3

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

doesnotnecessarilyrecommendsuchexpandedprovisions,itrecog-nizesthatsuchadditionsareusedfromtimetotimetomeetspecificwishesorneedsoftheparties.Explanatorytextsetsforthfactorsonemighttakeintoaccountwhenconsideringwhethertoincludesuchsupplementallanguage.

I. A Checklist for the Drafter

Itisnotenoughtostatethat“disputesarisingundertheagreementshallbesettledbyarbitration.”Whilethatlanguageindicatestheparties’intentiontoarbitrateandmayauthorizeacourttoenforcetheclause,itleavesmanyissuesunresolved.Issuessuchaswhen,where,howandbeforewhomadisputewillbearbitratedaresubjecttodisagreementonceacontroversyhasarisen,withnowaytoresolvethemexcepttogotocourt.

Someofthemoreimportantelementsapractitionershouldkeepinmindwhendrafting,adoptingorrecommendingadisputeresolutionclausefollow.

> Theclausemightcoveralldisputesthatmayarise,oronlycertaintypes.

> Itcouldspecifyonlyarbitration–whichyieldsabindingdecision–oralsoprovideanopportunityfornon-bindingnegotiationormediation.

> Thearbitrationclauseshouldbesignedbyasmanypotentialpartiestoafuturedisputeaspossible.

> Tobefullyeffective,“entryofjudgment”languageindomesticcasesisimportant.

> Itisnormallyagoodideatostatewhetherapanelofoneorthreearbitrator(s)istobeselected,andtoincludetheplacewherethearbitrationwilloccur.

> Ifthecontractincludesageneralchoiceoflawclause,itmaygovernthearbitrationproceeding.Theconsequencesshouldbeconsidered.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

4

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

> ConsiderationshouldbegiventoincorporatingtheAAA’sProceduresforLarge,ComplexCommercialDisputesforpotentiallysubstantialorcomplicatedcases.

> ThedraftershouldkeepinmindthattheAAAhasspecializedrulesforarbitrationintheconstruction,patent,securitiesandcertainotherfields.Ifanticipateddisputesfallintoanyoftheseareas,thespecializedrulesshouldbeconsideredforincorporationinthearbitrationclause.AnexperiencedAAAadministrativestaffmanagestheprocessingofcasesunderAAArules.

> Thepartiesarefreetocustomizeandrefinethebasicarbitrationprocedurestomeettheirparticularneeds.IfthepartiesagreeonaprocedurethatconflictswithotherwiseapplicableAAArules,theAAAwillalmostalwaysrespectthewishesoftheparties.

II. Major Features of Arbitration

Arbitrationisaprivate,informalprocessbywhichallpartiesagree,inwriting,tosubmittheirdisputestooneormoreimpartialpersonsauthorizedtoresolvethecontroversybyrenderingafinalandbindingaward.Itisusedforawidevarietyofdisputes–fromcommercialdisagreementsinvolvingconstruction,securitiestransactions,computersorrealestate(tonamejustafew),toinsuranceclaimsandlabor-uniongrievances.Whenanagreementtoarbitrateisincludedinacontract,itmightexpeditepeacefulsettlementwithoutthenecessityofgoingtoarbitrationatall.Thus,anarbitrationclauseisaformofinsuranceagainstlossofgoodwill.

Themajorfeaturesofarbitrationare:

1. AWrittenAgreementtoResolveDisputesbytheUseofImpartialArbitration.Suchaprovisionmaybeinsertedinacontractforresolutionoffuturedisputesormaybeanagreementtosubmittoarbitrationanexistingdispute.

5

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

2. InformalProcedures.UndertheAAArules,theprocedureisrelativelysimple:courtroomrulesofevidencearenotstrictlyapplicable;thereusuallyisnomotionpracticeorformaldiscovery;andthereisnorequirementfortranscriptsoftheproceedingsorforwrittenopinionsofthearbitrators.Thoughtheremaybenoformaldiscovery,theAAA’svariouscommercialrulesallowthearbitratortorequireproductionofrelevantinformationanddocuments.TheAAA’srulesareflexibleandmaybevariedbymutualagreementoftheparties.

3. ImpartialandKnowledgeableNeutralstoServeasArbitrators.Arbitratorsareselectedforspecificcasesbecauseoftheirknowledgeofthesubjectmatter.Basedonthatexperience,arbitratorscanrenderanawardgroundedonthoughtfulandinformedanalysis.

4. FinalandBindingAwardsthatareEnforceableinaCourt.Courtinterventionandreviewislimitedbyapplicablestateorfederalarbitrationlawsandawardenforcementisfacilitatedbythosesamelaws.

Duringitsmanyyearsofexistence,theAAAhasrefineditsstandardarbitrationclause.Thatclause,whenlinkedtoAAAcasemanagement,offersthepartiesasimple,time-testedmeansofresolvingdisputes.Occasionally,partiesortheircounseldesireadditionalprovisions.Thisbooklethasbeenpreparedasageneralguidefordraftingdisputeresolutionclauses.ItcontainsexamplesofclausesandportionsofclausesthathavebeenusedbypartiesincasesfiledwiththeAAA.ReadersshouldfeelfreetocontacttheirlocalAAAofficeforfurtherinformation.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

6

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

III. Clauses Approved By the AAA for General Commercial Use

ThestandardarbitrationclausesuggestedbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationaddressesmanybasicdraftingquestionsbyincorporatingAAArules.Thissimpleapproachhasprovenhighlyeffectiveinhundredsofthousandsofdisputes.Additionallanguage,whichpartiesmaywishtoaddinspecificcontexts,isdiscussedinSectionIVofthisbooklet.

ThestandardarbitrationclausealsomayincludereferencetotheAAA’sOptionalRulesforEmergencyMeasuresofProtection(beforeanarbitratorisselected)andforexpeditedarbitration.

Ifthepartieswish,standardclausesalsomaybeusedfornegotiationandmediation.Therearealsostandardclausesforuseinlarge,complexcases.

Arbitration

Thepartiescanprovideforarbitrationoffuturedisputesbyinsertingthefollowingclauseintotheircontracts(thelanguageinthebracketssuggestspossiblealternativesoradditions).

STD1 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,shallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationinaccordancewithitsCommercial[orother]ArbitrationRules[includingtheOptionalRulesforEmergencyMeasuresofProtection],andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

Arbitrationofexistingdisputesmaybeaccomplishedbyuseofthefollowing.

STD2 We,theundersignedparties,herebyagreetosubmittoarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercial[orother]ArbitrationRulesthefollowingcontroversy:[describebriefly].Wefurtheragreethatajudgmentofanycourthavingjurisdictionmaybeenteredupontheaward.

7

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Theprecedingclauses,whichrefertothetime-testedrulesoftheAAA,haveconsistentlyreceivedjudicialsupport.Thestandardclauseisoftenthebesttoincludeinacontract.ByinvokingtheAAA’srules,suchaclausemeetsthefollowingrequirementsofaneffectivearbitrationclause:

> Itmakesclearthatalldisputesarearbitrable.Thus,itminimizesdilatorycourtactionstoavoidthearbitrationprocess.

> Itisself-enforcing.Arbitrationcancontinuedespiteanobjectionfromaparty,unlesstheproceedingsarestayedbycourtorderorbyagreementoftheparties.

> Itprovidesacompletesetofrulesandprocedures.Thiseliminatestheneedtospelloutdozensofproceduralmattersintheparties’agreement.

> Itprovidesfortheselectionofaspecialized,impartialpanel.Arbitratorsareselectedbythepartiesfromascreenedandtrainedpoolofavailableexperts.UndertheAAArules,aprocedureisavailabletodisqualifyanarbitratorforbias.

> Itsettlesdisputesoverthelocaleofproceedings.Whenthepar-tiesdisagree,localedeterminationsaremadebytheAAAastheadministrator,precludingtheneedforinterventionbyacourt.

> Itmakespossibleadministrativeconferences.IftheclauseincorporatestheAAAcommercial,constructionindustryorrelat-edarbitrationrules,anadministrativeconferencewiththeparties’representativesandAAAcasemanagementtoexpeditethearbitrationproceedingsisavailablewhenappropriate.

> Itmakesavailablepreliminaryhearings.IftheclauseprovidesforAAArules,apreliminaryhearingcanbearrangedincommercialcasesofanysizetospecifytheissuestoberesolved,clarifyclaimsandcounterclaims,provideforapre-hearingexchangeofinformation,andconsiderothermattersthatwillexpeditethearbitrationproceedings.

8

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

> Italsomakesmediationavailable.IftheclauseprovidesforanyoftheAAA’svariouscommercialarbitrationrules,mediationconferencescanbearrangedtofacilitateavoluntarysettlement,withoutadditionaladministrativecosttotheparties.

> Itestablishestimelimitstoensurepromptresolutionforalldis-putes.AnadditionalfeatureofthevariousAAArulesisaspecialexpeditedprocedure,whichmaybeusedtoresolvesmallerclaimsandotherdisputesthatneedmorespeedyresolutions.

> ItprovidesforAAAadministrativeassistancetothearbitratorandtheparties.Toprotectneutralityandavoidunilateralcon-tact,mostrulesprovidefortheAAAtochannelcommunicationsbetweenthepartiesandthearbitrator.AnAAAcasemanagermayalsoprovideguidancetohelpensurepromptconclusionofapro-ceeding.

> Itestablishesaprocedureforservingnotices.Dependingontherulesusedandthetypeofthecase,noticesmaybeservedbyregularmail,addressedtothepartyoritsrepresentativeatthelastknownaddress.Undertherules,theAAAandthepartiesmayusefacsimiletransmissionorotherwrittenformsofelectroniccommunicationtogivethenoticesrequiredbytherules.

> Unlessotherwiseprovided,itgivesthearbitratorthepowertodecidemattersequitablyandtofashionappropriaterelief.TheAAAcommercialrulesallowthearbitratortograntanyremedyorreliefthatthearbitratordeemsjustandequitableandwithinthescopeoftheagreementoftheparties,includingspecificperformance.

> Itallowsexpartehearings.Ahearingmaybeheldintheabsenceofapartywhohasbeengivenduenotice.Thus,apartycannotavoidanawardbyrefusingtoappear.

9

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

> Itprovidesforenforcementoftheaward.Theawardcanbeenforcedinanycourthavingjurisdiction,withonlylimitedstatu-torygroundsforresistingtheaward.If,inadomestictransaction,asdistinguishedfromaninternationalone,thepartiesdesirethatthearbitrationclausebefinal,bindingandenforceable,itisessentialthattheclausecontainan“entryofjudgment”provisionsuchasthatfoundinthestandardarbitrationclause(“andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitratormaybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof”).

Negotiation

Thepartiesmaywishtoattempttoresolvetheirdisputesthroughnegotiationpriortoarbitration.Asampleofaclausewhichprovidesfornegotiationfollows.

NEG1 Intheeventofanydispute,claim,question,ordisagreementarisingfromorrelatingtothisagreementorthebreachthereof,thepartiesheretoshallusetheirbesteffortstosettlethedispute,claim,question,ordisagreement.Tothiseffect,theyshallconsultandnegotiatewitheachotheringoodfaithand,recognizingtheirmutualinterests,attempttoreachajustandequitablesolutionsatisfactorytobothparties.Iftheydonotreachsuchsolutionwithinaperiodof60days,then,uponnoticebyeitherpartytotheother,alldisputes,claims,questions,ordifferencesshallbefinallysettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofitsCommercialArbitrationRules.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

10

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Mediation

Thepartiesmaywishtoattemptmediationbeforesubmittingtheirdisputetoarbitration.Thiscanbeaccomplishedbymakingreferencetomediation(whichmaybeterminatedatanytimebyeitherparty)inthearbitrationclause.

MED1 Ifadisputearisesoutoforrelatestothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,andifthedisputecannotbesettledthroughnegotiation,thepartiesagreefirsttotryingoodfaithtosettlethedisputebymediationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercialMediationProceduresbeforeresortingtoarbitration,litigation,orsomeotherdisputeresolutionprocedure.

MED2 Thepartiesherebysubmitthefollowingdisputetomedia-tionadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercialMediationProcedures[theclausemayalsoprovideforthequalificationsofthemediator(s),themethodforallocatingfeesandexpenses,thelocaleofmeetings,timelimits,oranyotheritemofconcerntotheparties].

AnAAAadministratorcanassistthepartiesregardingselectionofthemediator,scheduling,pre-mediationinformationexchangeandattendanceofappropriatepartiesatthemediationconference.

Itisprudenttoincludetimelimitsonstepspriortoarbitration.Underabroadarbitrationclause,thequestionofwhetheraclaimhasbeenassertedwithinanapplicabletimelimitisgenerallyregardedasanarbitrableissue,suitableforresolutionbythearbitrator.

Large,ComplexCases

Thelarge,complexcaseframeworkofferedbytheAAAisdesignedprimarilyforbusinessdisputesinvolvingclaimsofatleast$500,000,althoughpartiesarefreetoprovideforuseoftheLCCRulesinotherdisputes.Thekeyelementsoftheprogramare(1)selectionofarbitratorswhosatisfyrigorouscriteriatoinsurethatthepanelisanextremelyselectone;(2)training,orientation,andcoordination

11

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

ofthosearbitratorsinamannerdesignedtofacilitatetheprogram;(3)establishmentofproceduresforadministrationofthosecasesthatelecttobeincludedintheprogram;(4)flexibilityofthoseproceduressothatpartiescanmorespeedilyandefficientlyresolvetheirdisputes;and(5)administrationoflarge,complexcasesbyspeciallytrained,experiencedAAAstaff.

TheproceduresprovideforanearlyadministrativeconferencewiththeAAA,andapreliminaryhearingwiththearbitrators.Documentaryexchangesandotheressentialexchangesofinformationarefacilitated.Theproceduresalsoprovidethatastatementofreasonsmayaccom-panytheaward,ifrequestedbytheparties.Theproceduresaremeanttosupplementtheapplicablerulesthatthepartieshaveagreedtouse.Theyincludethepossibilityoftheuseofmediationtoresolvesomeorallissuesatanearlystage.

Thepartiescanprovideforfutureapplicationoftheproceduresbyincludingthefollowingarbitrationclauseintheircontract.

LCCP1 AnycontroversyorclaimarisingfromorrelatingtothiscontractorthebreachthereofshallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderits[applicable]ProceduresforLarge,ComplexCommercialDisputes,andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

ApendingdisputecanbereferredtotheprogrambythecompletionofaSubmissiontoDisputeResolutionformiftheunderlyingcontractdocumentsdonotprovideforAAAadministration.

LCCP2 We,theundersignedparties,herebyagreetosubmittoarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderits[applicable]ProceduresforLarge,ComplexCommercialDisputesthefollowingcontroversy[describebriefly].Judgmentofanycourthavingjurisdictionmaybeenteredontheaward.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

12

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

IV. Clauses for Use in Specific Contexts

Thefollowingclauses,whichalsocanprovideforperiodsofnegotia-tionand/ormediationpriortoarbitration,maybeconsideredforuseinspecificcontexts.ThechecklistofconsiderationsinSectionIabovealsoshouldbeconsulted.

A.ClausesforUseinInternationalDisputes

TheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution(ICDR),theinternationaldivisionoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation,administersinternationalcommercialcasesundervariousarbitra-tionrulesworldwide.TheICDRadministerscasesunderitsownInternationalDisputeResolutionProcedures,variousAAArules,theCommercialArbitrationandMediationCenterfortheAmericas(CAMCA)Rules,theRulesoftheInter-AmericanCommercialArbitrationCommission(IACAC)andtheUNCITRALArbitrationRules.UnderArticle1oftheInternationalArbitrationRules,partiesmaydesignateeithertheICDRortheAAAinthearbitrationclauseforthepurposesofnaminganadministrativeagencyandconferringproperjurisdictiontotheICDRortheAAA.Followingaresamplesofarbitrationclausespertinenttointernationaldisputes.

INTL1 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontractshallbedeterminedbyarbitrationinaccor-dancewiththeInternationalArbitrationRulesoftheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution.

INTL2 Anydispute,controversy,orclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,shallbefinallysettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheCommercialArbitrationandMediationCenterfortheAmericasinaccordancewithitsrules,andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

13

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

INTL3 Anydispute,controversy,orclaimarisingfromorrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreach,termination,orinvaliditythereof,shallbesettledbyarbitrationinaccordancewiththeRulesofProcedureoftheInter-AmericanCommercialArbitrationCommissionineffectonthedateofthisagreement.

INTL4 Anydispute,controversy,orclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreach,termination,orinvaliditythereof,shallbesettledbyarbitrationundertheUNCITRALArbitrationRulesineffectonthedateofthiscontract.TheappointingauthorityshallbetheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution.ThecaseshallbeadministeredbytheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolutionunderitsProceduresforCasesundertheUNCITRALArbitrationRules.

Thepartiesshouldconsideraddingarequirementregardingthenumberofarbitratorsappointedtothedisputeanddesignatingtheplaceandlanguageofthearbitration.ThepartiesmayalsosubmitaninternationaldisputeundertheAAA’scommercialandotherspecializedarbitrationrules.Thoseproceduresdonotsupersedeanyprovisionoftheapplicablerulesbutmerelycodifyvariousprocedurescustomarilyusedininternationalarbitration.Includedamongthemareprovisionsspecifyingtheneutralityofarbitrators,consecutivehearingdays,thelanguageofhearings,andopinions.Thethrustoftheproceduresistoexpediteinternationalproceedingsandkeepthemaseconomicalaspossible.

Forstrategicorlongtermcommercialcontracts,thepartiesmaywishtoprovidea“step”disputeresolutionprocessencouragingnegotiatedsolutions,ormediationinadvanceofarbitrationorlitigation.Amodelstepclauseandmediationclausefollow.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

14

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

INTL5 Intheeventofanycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,thepartiesheretoshallconsultandnegotiatewitheachotherand,recognizingtheirmutualinterests,attempttoreachasolutionsatisfactorytobothparties.Iftheydonotreachsettlementwithinaperiodof60days,theneitherpartymay,bynoticetotheotherpartyandtheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution,demandmediationundertheInternationalMediationProceduresoftheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution.Ifsettlementisnotreachedwithin60daysafterserviceofawrittendemandformediation,anyunresolvedcontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscon-tractshallbesettledbyarbitrationinaccordancewiththeInternationalArbitrationRulesoftheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution.

INTL6 Intheeventofanycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,thepartiesheretoagreefirsttotryandsettlethedisputebymediationadministeredbytheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolutionunderitsrulesbeforeresortingtoarbitration,litigation,orsomeotherdisputeresolutiontechnique.

Usually,theeffectivemanagementoftimeandexpenseinarbitrationisbestleftinthehandsofexperiencedcasemanagersandarbitrators.Occasionally,however,partieswishtoensurethatmattersareresolvedinaminimumoftimeandwithoutrecoursetotheexpenseandtimenecessitatedbycommonlawmethodsofpre-hearinginformationexchange.Theclausesthatfollowlimitthetimeframeofarbitration(clausespresentedinthealternative)andtheamountofpre-hearinginformationexchangeavailabletotheparties.Onewordofcaution:onceenteredinto,theseclauseswilllimitthearbitrator’sauthoritytomoldtheprocesstothespecificdictatesofthecase.

15

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

INTL7 Theawardshallberenderedwithinninemonthsofthecommencementofthearbitration,unlesssuchtimelimitisextendedbythearbitrator.

Alternative

ItistheintentofthePartiesthat,barringextraordinarycircumstances,arbitrationproceedingswillbeconcludedwithin60daysfromthedatethearbitrator(s)areappointed.Thearbitraltribunalmayextendthistimelimitintheinterestsofjustice.Failuretoadheretothistimelimitshallnotconstituteabasisforchallengingtheaward.

INTL8 Consistentwiththeexpeditednatureofarbitration,pre-hearinginformationexchangeshallbelimitedtothereasonableproductionofrelevant,non-privilegeddocuments,carriedoutexpeditiously.

Enforcementofinternationalawardsisfacilitatedbythe1958UNConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the“NewYorkConvention”),whichhasbeenratifiedbymorethan110nations,andfacilitatedinthishemispherebytheInter-AmericanConventiononInternationalCommercialArbitration(the“PanamaConvention”).

B.ClausesforUseinConstructionDisputes

TheAAAConstructionIndustryArbitrationRulesandMediationProceduresaredesignedtoexpeditethedisputeresolutionprocessandhelptheAAAbemoreresponsivetotheneedsoftheconstructionindustry.Therulescontaina“fasttrack”arbitrationsystemforcasesinvolvingclaimsoflessthan$75,000;enhancementstothe“regulartrack”rules;andaLarge,ComplexConstructioncasetrackforuseincasesinvolvingclaimsofatleast$500,000.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

16

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Thepartiescanprovideforarbitrationoffuturedisputesbyinsertingthefollowingclauseintotheircontracts.

CONST1 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,shallbesettledbyarbitra-tionadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsConstructionIndustryArbitrationRules,andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

CONST2 We,theundersignedparties,herebyagreetosubmittoarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsConstructionIndustryArbitrationRulesthefollowingcontroversy:(citebriefly).Wefurtheragreethatthecontroversybesubmittedto(one)(three)arbitrator(s).Wefurtheragreethatwewillfaithfullyobservethisagreementandtherules,andthatajudgmentofanycourthavingjurisdictionmaybeenteredontheaward.

Ifpartieswishtoadoptmediationaspartoftheircontractualdisputesettlementprocedure,theycaninsertthefollowingmediationclauseinconjunctionwithastandardarbitrationprovision,andmayalsoprovidethattherequirementoffilinganoticeofclaimwithrespecttothedisputesubmittedtomediationshallbesuspendeduntiltheconclusionofthemediationprocess.

CONST3 Ifadisputearisesoutoforrelatestothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,andifthedisputecannotbesettledthroughnegotiation,thepartiesagreefirsttotryingoodfaithtosettlethedisputebymediationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsConstructionIndustryMediationProceduresbeforeresortingtoarbitra-tion,litigation,orsomeotherdisputeresolutiontechnique.

Partiesalsohavetheoptionofinsertinga“step”mediation-arbitrationclauseintotheircontracts.Adisputeresolutionhybrid,theclauseprovidesfirstformediationandthen,ifthedisputeisnotresolvedwithinaspecifiedtimeframe,arbitration.

17

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

CONST4 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontractorbreachthereof,shallbesettledbymediationundertheConstructionIndustryMediationProceduresoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.Ifwithin30daysafterserviceofawrittendemandformediation,themediationdoesnotresultinsettlementofthedispute,thenanyunresolvedcontroversyorclaimarisingfromorrelatingtothiscontractorbreachthereofshallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationinaccordancewithitsConstructionIndustryArbitrationRulesandjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

Ifthepartieswanttouseamediatortoresolveanexistingdispute,theycanenterintothefollowingsubmission.

CONST5 Thepartiesherebysubmitthefollowingdisputetomedia-tionadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsConstructionIndustryMediationProcedures(theclausemayalsoprovideforthequalificationsofthemediator(s),methodofpayment,localeofmeetings,thetollingofthestatuteoflimitations,pre-arbitrationstepclausewithtimeframesandanyotheritemofconcerntotheparties).

C.ClausesforUseinEmploymentDisputes

Conflictswhichariseduringthecourseofemployment,suchaswrong-fultermination,sexualharassmentanddiscriminationbasedonrace,color,religion,sex,nationalorigin,ageanddisability,haveredefinedresponsiblecorporatepracticeandemployeerelations.TheAAAthereforehasdevelopedspecialrulescalledtheNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputes.TheAAA’spolicyonemploy-mentADRisguidedbythestateofexistinglaw,aswellasitsobligationtoactinanimpartialmanner.Infollowingthelaw,andintheinterestof

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

18

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

providinganappropriateforumfortheresolutionofemploymentdisputes,theAssociationadministersdisputeresolutionprogramswhichmeetthedueprocessstandardsasoutlinedinitsNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputesandtheDueProcessProtocolforMediationandArbitrationofStatutoryDisputesArisingoutoftheEmploymentRelationship.IftheAssociationdeterminesthatadisputeresolutionprogramonitsfacesubstantiallyandmateriallydeviatesfromtheminimumdueprocessstandardsoftheNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputesandtheprotocol,theAssociationwilldeclinetoadministercasesunderthatprogram.Otherissueswillbepresentedtothearbitratorfordetermination.

AnemployerintendingtoincorporatetheserulesortorefertothedisputeresolutionservicesoftheAAAinanemploymentADRplan,shall,atleast30dayspriortotheplannedeffectivedateoftheprogram,(1)notifyand(2)providetheAssociationwithacopyoftheemploymentdisputeresolutionplan.Ifanemployerdoesnotcomplywiththisrequirement,theAssociationreservestherighttodeclineitsadministrativeservices.

Partiescanprovideforarbitrationoffuturedisputesbyinsertingthefollowingclauseintotheiremploymentcontracts,personnelmanualsorpolicystatements,employmentapplications,orotheragreements.

EMPL1 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothis[employmentapplication;employmentADRprogram;employmentcontract]shallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputesandjudgmentupontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

Arbitrationofexistingdisputescanbeaccomplishedbyuseofthefollowingclause.

EMPL2 We,theundersignedparties,herebyagreetosubmittoarbitration,administeredbytheAmericanArbitration

19

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

AssociationunderitsNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputes,thefollowingcontroversy:(describebriefly).Wefurtheragreethattheabovecontroversybesubmittedto(one)(three)arbitrator(s)selectedfromtherosterofarbitratorsoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation,andthatajudgmentofanycourthavingjurisdictionmaybeenteredontheaward.

Partiesmayagreetousemediationonaninformalbasisforselecteddisputes,ormediationmaybedesignatedinapersonnelmanualasasteppriortoarbitration,litigationorsomeotherdisputeresolutiontechnique.Ifthepartieswanttoadoptmediationasapartoftheircontractualdispute-settlementprocedure,theycanaddthefollowingmediationclausetotheircontract.

EMPL3 Ifadisputearisesoutoforrelatestothis[employmentapplication;employmentADRprogram;employmentcontract]orthebreachthereof,andifthedisputecannotbesettledthroughnegotiation,thepartiesagreefirsttotryingoodfaithtosettlethedisputebymediationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputes,beforeresortingtoarbitration,litigationorsomeotherdisputeresolutionprocedure.

Ifthepartieswanttouseamediatortoresolveanexistingdispute,theycanenterintothefollowingsubmission.

EMPL4 Thepartiesherebysubmitthefollowingdisputetomedia-tionadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsNationalRulesfortheResolutionofEmploymentDisputes(theclausemayalsoprovideforthequalificationsofthemediator(s),methodofpayment,localeofmeetings,andanyotheritemofconcerntotheparties).

D.ClausesforUseinPatentDisputes

Thesuitabilityofarbitrationasapromptandeffectivemeansofresolving

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

20

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

intellectualpropertydisputeshasbeenwellrecognizedinrecentyears.Thosewhouseandsupportarbitrationasawayofresolvingintellectualpropertyandlicensingdisputeshaveacknowledgedthefollowingadvantagesofarbitrationoverlitigationinthistechnicalfield:relativespeedandeconomy,privacy,convenience,informality,reducedlikelihoodofdamagetoongoingbusinessrelationships,greatersuitabilitytointernationalproblems,and,especiallyimportant,theabilityofthepartiestoselectarbitratorswhoareexpertsandfamiliarwiththesubjectmatterofthedispute.

Theawardisbindingonlyonthepartiestothearbitration,andthepartiesmayagreethattheawardwillbemodifiedifthepatentthatisthesubjectofthearbitrationissubsequentlydeterminedtobeinvalidorunenforceable.Ifpartiesforeseethepossibilityofneedingemergencyreliefakintoatemporaryrestrainingorder,theymightspecifyanarbitratorbynameforthatpurposeintheirarbitrationclauseorauthorizetheAAAtonameapreliminaryreliefarbitrator;forsampleclauses,consultSectionV,discussionofPreliminaryRelief.Partiescanprovideforarbitrationoffuturedisputesbyinsertingthefollowingclauseintotheircontracts.

PATENT1 Anycontroversyorclaimarisingoutoforrelatingtothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,shallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsPatentArbitrationRules,andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitrator(s)maybeenteredbyanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

Arbitrationofexistingdisputesmaybeaccomplishedbyuseofthefollowingclause.

PATENT2 We,theundersignedparties,herebyagreetosubmittoarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsPatentArbitrationRulesthefollowingcontroversy:(describebriefly).Wefurtheragreethattheabovecontroversybesubmittedto(one)

21

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

(three)arbitrator(s),andthatajudgmentofanycourthavingjurisdictionmaybeenteredontheaward.

Ifpartieswanttoadoptmediationasapartoftheircontractualdisputesettlementprocedure,theycaninsertthefollowingmediationclauseinconjunctionwithastandardarbitrationprovision.

PATENT3 Ifadisputearisesoutoforrelatestothiscontract,orthebreachthereof,andifthedisputecannotbesettledthroughnegotiation,thepartiesagreefirsttotryingoodfaithtosettlethedisputebymediationadminis-teredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercialMediationProceduresbeforeresortingtoarbitration,litigation,orsomeotherdisputeresolutionprocedure.

Ifthepartieswanttouseamediatortoresolveanexistingdispute,theycanenterintothefollowingsubmission.

PATENT4 ThepartiesherebysubmitthefollowingdisputetomediationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercialMediationProcedures(theclausemayalsoprovideforthequalificationsofthemediator(s),methodofpayment,localeofmeetings,andanyotheritemofconcerntotheparties).

V. Other Provisions That Might Be Considered

ThissectioncontainsvariousprovisionswhichexpanduponandaresupplementaltothebasicdisputeresolutionclausessetforthinSectionsIIIandIV.Thelistingofsuchprovisionsisnotintendedtobeall-inclusiveanddoesnotnecessarilyindicatethattheAAAendorsestheuseofsuchadditionallanguage.TheAAArecognizes,however,thatsomedrafterschoosetoexpandtheirdisputeresolutionclausestoreflectatleastsomeoftheseideas.Sinceitisimportantthatpractitionersbewellinformedwhenmakingchoicesindrafting,thesectionalsosetsforth,whereappropriate,certainoftheprosand

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

22

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

consofadoptingthevarioussupplementalprovisions.

A.SpecifyingaMethodofSelectionandtheNumberofArbitrators

UndertheAAA’sarbitrationrules,arbitratorsaregenerallyselectedusingalistingprocess.TheAAAcasemanagerprovideseachpartywithalistofproposedarbitratorswhoaregenerallyfamiliarwiththesubjectmatterinvolvedinthedispute.Eachsideisprovidedanum-berofdaystostrikeanyunacceptablenames,numbertheremainingnamesinorderofpreference,andreturnthelisttotheAAA.Thecasemanagertheninvitespersonstoservefromthenamesremainingonthelist,inthedesignatedorderofmutualpreference.Thepartiesmayagreetohaveonearbitratororthree(whichincreasesthecost).Ifpartiesdonotagreeonthenumberofarbitrator(s),itwillbelefttothediscretionofthecasemanager.

Thepartiesmayuseotherarbitratorappointmentsystems,suchastheparty-appointedmethodinwhicheachsidedesignatesonearbitratorandthetwothusselectedappointthechairofthepanel.

TheCommercialArbitrationRulesandtheConstructionIndustryArbitrationRulesprovidethatunlessthepartiesspecificallyagreeinwritingthattheparty-appointedarbitratorsaretobenon-neutral,arbitratorsappointedbythepartiesmustmeettheimpartialityandindependencestandardssetforthwithintherules.Ifpartiesintendthattheirpartyappointedarbitratorsserveinanon-neutralcapacity,thisshouldbeclearlystatedwithintheirclause.

Thearbitrationclausecanalsospecifybynametheindividualwhomthepartieswantastheirarbitrator.However,thepotentialunavailabilityofthenamedindividualinthefuturemayposearisk.

Alloftheseissuesandotherscanbedealtwithinthearbitrationclause.

23

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Someillustrativeprovisionsfollow.

ARBSEL1 Thearbitratorselectedbytheclaimantandthearbi-tratorselectedbyrespondentshall,withintendaysoftheirappointment,selectathirdneutralarbitrator.Intheeventthattheyareunabletodoso,thepartiesortheirattorneysmayrequesttheAmericanArbitrationAssociationtoappointthethirdneutralarbitrator.Priortothecommencementofhearings,eachofthearbitratorsappointedshallprovideanoathorundertakingofimpartiality.

ARBSEL2 Within15daysafterthecommencementofarbitration,eachpartyshallselectonepersontoactasarbitratorandthetwoselectedshallselectathirdarbitratorwithintendaysoftheirappointment.[Thepartyselectedarbitratorswillserveinanon-neutralcapacity.]Ifthearbitratorsselectedbythepartiesareunableorfailtoagreeuponthethirdarbitrator,thethirdarbitratorshallbeselectedbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.

ARBSEL3 Intheeventthatarbitrationisnecessary,[nameofspecificarbitrator]shallactasthearbitrator.

Whenprovidingfordirectappointmentofthearbitrator(s)bytheparties,itisbesttospecifyatimeframewithinwhichitmustbeaccomplished.Also,inmanyjurisdictions,thelawpermitsthecourttoappointarbitratorswhereprivately-agreedmeansfail.Sucharesultmaybetimeconsuming,costly,andunpredictable.Partieswhoseektoestablishanad-hocmethodofarbitratorappointmentmightbewelladvisedtoprovideafallback,suchas,shouldtheparticularprocedurefailforanyreason,“arbitratorsshallbeappointedasprovidedintheAAACommercialArbitrationRules.”

B.ArbitratorQualifications

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

24

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Thepartiesmaywishthatoneormoreofthearbitratorsbealawyeroranaccountantoranexpertincomputertechnology,etc.Insomeinstances,itmakesmoresensetospecifythatoneofthreearbitratorsbeanaccountant,forexample,thantoturntheentireproceedingovertothreeaccountants.Sampleclausesprovidingforspecificqualificationsofarbitratorsaresetforthbelow.

QUAL1 Thearbitratorshallbeacertifiedpublicaccountant.

QUAL2 Thearbitratorshallbeapracticingattorney[oraretiredjudge][ofthe[specify]Court].

QUAL3 Thearbitrationproceedingsshallbeconductedbeforeapanelofthreeneutralarbitrators,allofwhomshallbemembersofthebarofthestateof[specify],activelyengagedinthepracticeoflawforatleasttenyears.

QUAL4 Thepanelofthreearbitratorsshallconsistofonecontractor,onearchitect,andoneconstructionattorney.

QUAL5 Thearbitratorswillbeselectedfromapanelofpersonshavingexperiencewithandknowledgeofelectroniccomputersandthecomputerbusiness,andatleastoneofthearbitratorsselectedwillbeanattorney.

QUAL6 Intheeventthatanyparty’sclaimexceeds$1million,exclusiveofinterestandattorneys’fees,thedisputeshallbeheardanddeterminedbythreearbitrators.

Partiesmightwishtospecifythatthearbitratorshouldorshouldnotbeanationalorcitizenofaparticularcountry.Thefollowingexamplescanbeaddedtothearbitrationclausetodealwiththisconcern.

NATLY1 Thearbitratorshallbeanationalof[country].

NATLY2 Thearbitratorshallnotbeanationalofeither[countryA]or[countryB].

NATLY3 Thearbitratorshallnotbeofthenationalityofeitheroftheparties.

C.LocaleProvisions

25

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Partiesmightwanttoaddlanguagespecifyingtheplaceofthearbitration.Thechoiceoftheproperplacetoarbitrateismostimportantbecausetheplaceofarbitrationimpliesgenerallyachoiceoftheapplicableprocedurallaw,whichinturnaffectsquestionsofarbitrability,procedure,courtinterventionandenforcement.

Inspecifyingalocale,partiesshouldconsider(1)theconvenienceofthelocation(e.g.,availabilityofwitnesses,localcounsel,transportation,hotels,meetingfacilities,courtreporters,etc.);(2)theavailablepoolofqualifiedarbitratorswithinthegeographicalarea;and(3)theapplicableproceduralandsubstantivelaw.Ofparticularimportanceininternationalcasesistheapplicabilityofaconventionprovidingforrecognitionandenforcementofarbitralagreementsandawardsandthearbitrationregimeatthechosensite.

Anexampleoflocaleprovisionsthatmightappearinanarbitrationclausefollows.

LOC1 Theplaceofarbitrationshallbe[city],[state],or[country].

D.Language

Inmattersinvolvingmultilingualparties,thearbitrationagreementoftenspecifiesthelanguageinwhichthearbitrationwillbeconducted.Examplesofsuchlanguagefollow.

LANG1 Thelanguage(s)ofthearbitrationshallbe[specify].

LANG2 Thearbitrationshallbeconductedinthelanguageinwhichthecontractwaswritten.

Sucharbitrationclausescouldalsodealwithselectionandcostallocationofaninterpreter.

E.GoverningLaw

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

26

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Itiscommonforpartiestospecifythelawthatwillgovernthecontractand/orthearbitrationproceedings.Someexamplesfollow.

GOV1 ThisagreementshallbegovernedbyandinterpretedinaccordancewiththelawsoftheStateof[specify].Thepartiesacknowledgethatthisagreementevidencesatransactioninvolvinginterstatecommerce.TheUnitedStatesArbitrationActshallgoverntheinterpretation,enforcement,andproceedingspursuanttothearbitrationclauseinthisagreement.

GOV2 DisputesunderthisclauseshallberesolvedbyarbitrationinaccordancewithTitle9oftheUSCode(UnitedStatesArbitrationAct)andtheCommercialArbitrationRulesoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.

GOV3 ThiscontractshallbegovernedbythelawsoftheStateof[specify].

Ininternationalcases,wherethepartieshavenotprovidedforthelawapplicabletothesubstanceofthedispute,theAAA’sInternationalArbitrationRulescontainspecificguidelinesforarbitratorsregardingapplicablelaw.SeethediscussionconcerningInternationalDisputes.

F.ConditionsPrecedenttoArbitration

Underanagreementoftheparties,satisfactionofspecifiedconditionsmayberequiredbeforeadisputeisreadyforarbitration.Examplesofsuchconditionsprecedentincludewrittennotificationofclaimswithinafixedperiodoftimeandexhaustionofothercontractuallyestablishedprocedures,suchassubmissionofclaimstoanarchitectorengineer.Thesekindsofprovisionsmay,however,beasourceofdelayandmayrequirelinkagewithastatuteoflimitationswaiver(seebelow).Anexampleofa“conditionprecedent”clausefollows.

CONPRE1 Ifadisputearisesfromorrelatestothiscontract,thepartiesagreethatuponrequestofeitherpartytheywillseektheadviceof[amutuallyselectedengineer]andtryingoodfaithtosettlethedisputewithin30daysofthatrequest,followingwhicheitherpartymaysubmitthemattertomediationundertheCommercialMediation

27

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

ProceduresoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.Ifthematterisnotresolvedwithin60daysafterinitiationofmediation,eitherpartymaydemandarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderits[applicable]rules.

G.PreliminaryRelief

WhilepreliminaryreliefispermittedundertheAAA’scommercialrules,itisappropriatetoprovidespecificallyforitifaneedforaninterimremedyisanticipated.OnewaytodosoistoincorporatetheOptionalRulesforEmergencyMeasuresofProtectionoftheAAACommercialArbitrationRulesandMediationProcedures,discussedabove.Alternatively,ifthepartiesforeseethepossibilityofneedingemergencyreliefakintoatemporaryrestrainingorder,theymightspecifyanarbitratorbynameforthatpurposeintheirarbitrationclauseorauthorizetheAAAtonameapreliminaryreliefarbitratortoensureanarbitratorisinplaceinsufficienttimetoaddressappropriateissues.

Specificclausesprovidingforpreliminaryreliefaresetforthbelow.

PRELIM1 Eitherpartymayapplytothearbitratorseekinginjunctivereliefuntilthearbitrationawardisrenderedorthecontroversyisotherwiseresolved.Eitherpartyalsomay,withoutwaivinganyremedyunderthisagreement,seekfromanycourthavingjurisdictionanyinterimorprovisionalreliefthatisnecessarytoprotecttherightsorpropertyofthatparty,pendingtheestablishmentofthearbitraltribunal(orpendingthearbitraltribunal’sdeterminationofthemeritsofthecontroversy).

NotethattheAAA’srulesprovideforinterimreliefbythearbitratoruponapplicationofaparty.

Pendingtheoutcomeofthearbitration,partiesmayagreetoholdinescrowmoney,aletterofcredit,goods,orthesubjectmatterofthearbitration.Asampleofaclauseprovidingforsuchescrowfollows.

ESCROW1 Pendingtheoutcomeofthearbitration[nameofparty]shallplaceinescrowwith[lawfirm,institution,orAAA]

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

28

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

astheescrowagent,[thesumof____________________,aletterofcredit,goods,orthesubjectmatterindispute].Theescrowagentshallbeentitledtoreleasethe[funds,letterofcredit,goods,orsubjectmatterindispute]asdirectedbythearbitrator(s)intheaward,unlessthepartiesagreeotherwiseinwriting.

H.Consolidation

Wheretherearemultiplepartieswithdisputesarisingfromthesametransaction,complicationscanoftenbereducedbytheconsolidationofalldisputes.Sincearbitrationisaprocessbasedonvoluntarycontractualparticipation,partiesmaynotberequiredtoarbitrateadisputewithouttheirconsent.However,partiescanprovidefortheconsolidationoftwoormoreseparatearbitrationsintoasingleproceedingorpermitthejoinderofathirdpartyintoanarbitration.Inaconstructiondispute,consolidatedproceedingsmayeliminatetheneedforduplicativepresentationsofclaimsandavoidthepossibilityofconflictingrulingsfromdifferentpanelsofarbitra-tors.However,consolidatingclaimsmightbeasourceofdelayandexpense.Anexampleoflanguagethatcanbeincludedinanarbitra-tionclausefollows.

CONSOL1 Theowner,thecontractor,andallsubcontractors,specialtycontractors,materialsuppliers,engineers,designers,architects,constructionlenders,bondingcompanies,andotherpartiesconcernedwiththeconstructionofthestructurearebound,eachtoeachother,bythisarbitrationclause,providedthattheyhavesignedthiscontractoracontractthatincorporatesthiscontractbyreferenceorsignedanyotheragreementtobeboundbythisarbitrationclause.Eachsuchpartyagreesthatitmaybejoinedasanadditionalpartytoanarbitrationinvolvingotherpartiesunderanysuchagreement.Ifmorethanonearbitrationisbegununderanysuchagreementandanypartycontendsthattwoor

29

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

morearbitrationsaresubstantiallyrelatedandthattheissuesshouldbeheardinoneproceeding,thearbitrator(s)selectedinthefirst-filedofsuchproceedingsshalldeterminewhether,intheinterestsofjusticeandefficiency,theproceedingsshouldbeconsolidatedbeforethat(those)arbitrator(s).

I.DocumentDiscovery

UndertheAAArules,arbitratorsareauthorizedtodirectaprehearingexchangeofdocuments.Thepartiestypicallydiscusssuchanexchangeandseektoagreeonitsscope.Inmost(butnotall)instances,arbitratorswillorderpromptproductionoflimitednumbersofdocumentswhicharedirectlyrelevanttotheissuesinvolved.Insomeinstances,partiesmightwanttoensurethatsuchproductionwillinfactoccurandthusprovideforitintheirarbitrationclause.Indoingso,however,theyshouldbemindfulofwhatscopeofdocumentproductiontheydesire.Thismaybedifficulttodecideattheoutset.Ifthepartiesaddressdiscoveryintheclause,theymightincludetimelimitationsastowhenalldiscoveryshouldbecompletedandmightspecifythatthearbitratorshallresolveoutstandingdiscoveryissues.Samplelanguageissetforthbelow.

DOC1 Consistentwiththeexpeditednatureofarbitration,eachpartywill,uponthewrittenrequestoftheotherparty,promptlyprovidetheotherwithcopiesofdocuments[relevanttotheissuesraisedbyanyclaimorcounterclaim][onwhichtheproducingpartymayrelyinsupportoforinoppositiontoanyclaimordefense].Anydisputeregard-ingdiscovery,ortherelevanceorscopethereof,shallbedeterminedbythe[arbitrator(s)][chairofthearbitrationpanel],whichdeterminationshallbeconclusive.Alldiscoveryshallbecompletedwithin[45][60]daysfollowingtheappointmentofthearbitrator(s).

TheAAA’svariouscommercialarbitrationrulesprovideanopportu-

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

30

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

nityforanadministrativeconferencewiththeAAAstaffand/orapre-liminaryhearingwiththearbitrator.Thepurposesofsuchmeetingsincludeestablishingtheextentofandascheduleforproductionofrelevantdocumentsandotherinformation.

J.Depositions

Generallyarbitratorsprefertohearandbeabletoquestionwitnessesatahearingratherthanrelyondepositiontestimony.However,par-tiesarefreetoprovideintheirarbitrationclauseforatailoreddiscov-eryprogram,preferablytobemanagedbythearbitrator.Thismightoccur,forexample,ifthepartiesanticipatetheneedfordistantwit-nesseswhowouldnotbeabletotestifyexceptthroughdepositionsor,inthealternative,bythearbitratorholdingahearingwherethewitnessislocatedandsubjecttosubpoena.Inmostcaseswherepartiesprovidefordepositions,theydosoinverylimitedfashion,i.e.,theymightspecifya30-daydepositionperiod,witheachsidepermittedthreedepositions,noneofwhichwouldlastmorethanthreehours.Allobjectionswouldbereservedforthearbitrationhearingandwouldnotevenbenotedatthedepositionexceptforobjectionsbasedonprivilegeorextremeconfidentiality.Samplelanguageprovidingforsuchdepositionsissetforthbelow.

DEP1 Attherequestofaparty,thearbitrator(s)shallhavethediscretiontoorderexaminationbydepositionofwitnessestotheextentthearbitratordeemssuchadditionaldiscoveryrelevantandappropriate.Depositionsshallbelimitedtoamaximumof[three][insertnumber]perpartyandshallbeheldwithin30daysofthemakingofarequest.Additionaldepositionsmaybescheduledonlywiththepermissionofthe[arbitrator(s)][chairofthearbitrationpanel],andforgoodcauseshown.Eachdepositionshallbelimitedtoamaximumof[threehours][sixhours][oneday’s]dura-tion.Allobjectionsarereservedforthearbitrationhearingexceptforobjectionsbasedonprivilegeandproprietaryorconfidentialinformation.

31

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

K.DurationofArbitrationProceeding

WhileAAACommercialArbitrationRulesnormallyprovideforanawardwithin30daysoftheclosingofthehearing,partiessometimesunderscoretheirwishforanexpeditedresultbyprovidinginthearbitrationclause,forexample,thattherewillbeanawardwithinaspecifiednumberofmonthsofthenoticeofintentiontoarbitrateandthatthearbitrator(s)mustagreetothetimeconstraintsbeforeacceptingappointment.Beforeadoptingsuchlanguage,however,thepartiesshouldconsiderwhetherthedeadlineisrealisticandwhatwouldhappenifthedeadlinewerenotmetundercircumstanceswherethepartieshadnotmutuallyagreedtoextendit(e.g.,whethertheawardwouldbeenforceable).Itthusmaybehelpfultoallowthearbitratortoextendtimelimitsinappropriatecircumstances.Samplelanguageissetforthbelow.

TIME1 Theawardshallbemadewithinninemonthsofthefilingofthenoticeofintentiontoarbitrate(demand),andthearbitrator(s)shallagreetocomplywiththisschedulebeforeacceptingappointment.However,thistimelimitmaybeextendedbyagreementofthepartiesorbythearbitrator(s)ifnecessary.

L.Remedies

UnderabroadarbitrationclauseandmostAAArules,thearbitratormaygrant“anyremedyorreliefthatthearbitratordeemsjustandequitable”withinthescopeoftheparties’agreement.Sometimespartieswanttoincludeorexcludecertainspecificremedies.Examplesofclausesdealingwithremediesfollow.

REM1 Thearbitratorswillhavenoauthoritytoawardpunitiveorotherdamagesnotmeasuredbytheprevailingparty’sactualdamages,exceptasmayberequiredbystatute.

REM2 Innoeventshallanawardinanarbitrationinitiatedunderthisclauseexceed$________.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

32

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

REM3 Innoeventshallanawardinanarbitrationinitiatedunderthisclauseexceed$________foranyclaimant.

REM4 Thearbitrator(s)shallnotawardconsequentialdamagesinanyarbitrationinitiatedunderthissection.

REM5 Anyawardinanarbitrationinitiatedunderthisclauseshallbelimitedtomonetarydamagesandshallincludenoinjunctionordirectiontoanypartyotherthanthedirectiontopayamonetaryamount.

REM6 Ifthearbitrator(s)findliabilityinanyarbitrationinitiatedunderthisclause,theyshallawardliquidateddamagesintheamountof$________.

REM7 Anymonetaryawardinanarbitrationinitiatedunderthisclauseshallincludepre-awardinterestattherateof____%fromthetimeoftheactoractsgivingrisetotheaward.

M.“Baseball”Arbitration

“Baseball”arbitrationisamethodologyusedinmanydifferentcontextsinadditiontobaseballplayers’salarydisputes,andisparticularlyeffectivewhenpartieshavealong-termrelationship.Theprocedureinvolveseachpartysubmittinganumbertothearbitrator(s)andservingthenumberonhisorheradversaryontheunderstandingthat,follow-ingahearing,thearbitrator(s)willpickoneofthesubmittednumbers,nothingelse.Akeyaspectofthisapproachisthatthereisincentiveforapartytosubmitahighlyreasonablenumber,sincethisincreasesthelikelihoodthatthearbitrator(s)willselectthatnumber.Insomeinstances,theprocessofsubmittingthenumbersmovesthepartiessoclosetogetherthatthedisputeissettledwithoutahearing.Samplelanguageprovidingfor“baseball”arbitrationissetforthbelow.

BASEBALL1 Eachpartyshallsubmittothearbitratorandexchangewitheachotherinadvanceofthehearingtheirlast,bestoffers.Thearbitratorshallbelimitedtoawardingonlyoneortheotherofthetwofiguressubmitted.

33

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

N.ArbitrationWithinMonetaryLimits

Partiesareoftenabletonegotiatetoapointbutarethenunabletoclosetheremaininggapbetweentheirrespectivepositions.Byset-tingupanarbitrationthatmustresultinanawardwithinthegapthatremainsbetweentheparties,thepartiesareabletoeliminateextremerisk,whilegainingthebenefitoftheextenttowhichtheirnegotiationsweresuccessful.

Therearetwocommonly-usedapproaches.Thefirstinvolvesinformingthearbitrator(s)thattheawardshouldbesomewherewithinaspeci-fiedmonetaryrange.Samplecontractlanguageprovidingforthismethodologyissetforthbelow.

LIMITS1 Anyawardofthearbitratorinfavorof[specifyparty]andagainst[specifyparty]shallbeatleast[specifyadollaramount]butshallnotexceed[specifyadollaramount].[Specifyaparty]expresslywaivesanyclaiminexcessof[specifyadollaramount]andagreesthatitsrecoveryshallnotexceedthatamount.Anysuchawardshallbeinsatisfactionofallclaimsby[specifyaparty]against[specifyaparty].

Asecondapproachisforthepartiestoagreebutnottellthearbitrator(s)thattheamountofrecoverywill,forexample,besomewherebetween$5and$10.Iftheawardislessthan$5,thenitisraisedto$5pursuanttotheagreement;iftheawardismorethan$10,thenitisloweredto$10pursuanttotheagreement;iftheawardiswithinthe$5-10range,thentheamountawardedbythearbitrator(s)isunchanged.Samplecontractlanguageprovidingforthismethodologyissetforthbelow.

LIMITS2 Intheeventthatthearbitratordeniestheclaimorawardsanamountlessthantheminimumamountof[specify],thenthisminimumamountshallbepaidtotheclaimant.Shouldthearbitrator’sawardexceedthemaximumamountof[specify],thenonlythismaximumamountshallbepaidtotheclaimant.Itisfurtherunderstoodbetweenthepartiesthat,ifthearbitratorawardsanamountbetweentheminimumandthemaximumstipulatedrange,thentheexactawarded

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

34

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

amountwillbepaidtotheclaimant.Thepartiesfurtheragreethatthisagreementisprivatebetweenthemandwillnotbedisclosedtothearbitrator.

O.AssessmentofAttorneys’Fees

TheAAArulesgenerallyprovidethattheadministrativefeesbeborneasincurredandthatthearbitrators’compensationbeallocatedequallybetweenthepartiesand,exceptforinternationalrules,aresilentconcerningattorneys’fees;butthiscanbemodifiedbyagreementoftheparties.Feesandexpensesofthearbitration,includingattorneys’fees,canbedealtwithinthearbitrationclause.Sometypicallanguagedealingwithfeesandexpensesfollow.

FEE1 Theprevailingpartyshallbeentitledtoanawardofreasonableattorneyfees.

FEE2 Thearbitratorsshallawardtotheprevailingparty,ifany,asdeterminedbythearbitrators,allofitscostsandfees.“Costsandfees”meanallreasonablepre-awardexpensesofthearbitration,includingthearbitrators’fees,administrativefees,travelexpenses,out-of-pocketexpensessuchascopyingandtelephone,courtcosts,witnessfees,andattorneys’fees.

FEE3 Eachpartyshallbearitsowncostsandexpensesandanequalshareofthearbitrators’andadministrativefeesofarbitration.

FEE4 Thearbitratorsmaydeterminehowthecostsandexpensesofthearbitrationshallbeallocatedbetweentheparties,buttheyshallnotawardattorneys’fees.

P.ReasonedOpinionAccompanyingtheAward

35

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Indomesticcommercialcases,arbitratorsusuallywillnotwriteareasonedopinionexplainingtheirawardunlesssuchanopinionisrequestedbyallparties.Whilesometakethepositionthatreasonedopinionsdetractfromfinalityiftheyfacilitatepost-arbitrationresorttothecourts,partiessometimesdesiresuchopinions,particularlyinlarge,complexcasesorasalreadyprovidedbymostapplicablerulesininternationaldisputes.Ifthepartieswantsuchanopinion,theycanincludelanguagesuchasthefollowingintheirarbitrationclause.

OPIN1 Theawardofthearbitratorsshallbeaccompaniedbyareasonedopinion.

OPIN2 Theawardshallbeinwriting,shallbesignedbyamajor-ityofthearbitrators,andshallincludeastatementsettingforththereasonsforthedispositionofanyclaim.

OPIN3 Theawardshallincludefindingsoffact[andconclusionsoflaw].

OPIN4 Theawardshallincludeabreakdownastospecificclaims.

Q.Confidentiality

WhiletheAAAandarbitratorsadheretocertainstandardsconcerningtheprivacyorconfidentialityofthehearings(seetheAAA-ABACodeofEthicsforArbitratorsinCommercialDisputes,CanonVI),partiesmightalsowishtoimposelimitsonthemselvesastohowmuchinformationregardingthedisputemaybedisclosedoutsidethehearing.Thefollowinglanguagemighthelpservethispurpose.

CONF1 Exceptasmayberequiredbylaw,neitherapartynoranarbitratormaydisclosetheexistence,content,orresultsofanyarbitrationhereunderwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofbothparties.

Theprecedinglanguagecouldalsobemodifiedtorestrictonlydisclosureofcertaininformation(e.g.,tradesecrets).

R.Appeal

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

36

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Thebasicobjectiveofarbitrationisafair,fastandexpertresult,achievedeconomically.Consistentwiththisgoal,anarbitrationawardtraditionallywillbesetasideonlyinegregiouscircumstancessuchasdemonstrablebiasofanarbitrator.Sometimes,however,thepartiesdesireamorecomprehensiveappeal,mostofteninthesettingoflegallycomplexcases.Providingamechanismforsuchanappealassuresthatthelosingpartywilluseit.Whilepartiescanattempttoprovideforanappealinthecourtsystempursuanttotraditionalstandardsofcourtreview,theauthorityismixedastowhethercourtswillacceptappealsfromarbitrationonsuchabasis.Anotherapproachistoprovideforanappealtoanotherpanelofarbitratorswhowouldapplywhateverstandardofreviewthepartiesmightspecify.Setforthbelowisanexampleofarbitrationclauselanguageprovidingforthislattertypeofappeal.

APP1 Within30daysofreceiptofanyaward(whichshallnotbebindingifanappealistaken),anypartymaynotifytheAAAofanintentiontoappealtoasecondarbitraltribunal,constitutedinthesamemannerastheinitialtribunal.Theappealtribunalshallbeentitledtoadopttheinitialawardasitsown,modifytheinitialawardorsubstituteitsownawardfortheinitialaward.Theappealtribunalshallnotmodifyorreplacetheinitialawardexcept[formanifestdisregardoflaworfacts][forclearerrorsoflaworbecauseofclearandconvincingfactualerrors].Theawardoftheappealtribunalshallbefinalandbinding,andjudgmentmaybeenteredbyacourthavingjurisdictionthereof.

S.Mediation-Arbitration

37

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

AclausemayprovidefirstformediationundertheAAA’smediationprocedures.Ifthemediationisunsuccessful,themediatorcouldbeauthorizedtoresolvethedisputeundertheAAA’sarbitrationrules.Thisprocess,issometimesreferredtoas“Med-Arb.”Exceptinunusualcircumstances,aprocedurewherebythesameindividualwhohasbeenservingasamediatorbecomesanarbitratorwhenthemediationfailsisnotrecommended,becauseitcouldinhibitthecandorwhichshouldcharacterizethemediationprocessand/oritcouldconveyevidence,legalpointsorsettlementpositionsexparte,improperlyinfluencingthearbitrator.Asampleofamed-arbclausefollows.

MEDARB1 Ifadisputearisesfromorrelatestothiscontractorthebreachthereof,andifthedisputecannotbesettledthroughdirectdiscussions,thepartiesagreetoendeavorfirsttosettlethedisputebymediationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationunderitsCommercialMediationProceduresbeforeresortingtoarbitration.Anyunresolvedcontroversyorclaimaris-ingfromorrelatingtothiscontractorbreachthereofshallbesettledbyarbitrationadministeredbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociationinaccordancewithitsCommercialArbitrationRules,andjudgmentontheawardrenderedbythearbitratormaybeenteredinanycourthavingjurisdictionthereof.Ifallpartiestothedisputeagree,amediatorinvolvedintheparties’mediationmaybeaskedtoserveasthearbitrator.

T.StatuteofLimitations

Partiesmaywishtoconsiderwhethertheapplicablestatuteoflimitationswillbetolledforthedurationofmediationproceedings,andcanrefertothefollowinglanguage.

STATLIM1 Therequirementsoffilinganoticeofclaimwithrespecttothedisputesubmittedtomediationshallbesuspendeduntiltheconclusionofthemediationprocess.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

38

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

U.DisputeResolutionBoards

ADisputeResolutionBoard(DRB)providesaprompt,rational,impartialreviewofdisputesbymutuallyacceptedexperts,whichfrequentlyresultsinsubstantialcostsavingsandcaneliminateyearsofwastedtimeandenergyinlitigation.DRBproceduresmaybemadeapartofconstructioncontractdocuments.

ThecontractshouldcontainaparagraphreflectingtheagreementtoestablishtheDRB.Thetextoftheactualproceduresalsoshouldbephysicallyincorporatedintothegeneralconditionsorsupplementaryconditionsofthecontractforconstructionwhereverpossibleandpractical,andsuchdocumentsastheinvitationtobiddersortherequestforproposalsshouldmentionthattheformationofaDRBiscontemplated.TheDRBproceduresshouldbecoordinatedwiththeotherdisputeresolutionproceduresrequiredbythecontractdocuments.

Suggestedlanguageforincorporationinthecontractfollows.

DRB1 ThepartiesshallimpanelaDisputeResolutionBoardofoneorthreemembersinaccordancewiththeDisputeResolutionBoardGuideSpecificationsoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation.TheDRB,incloseconsultationwithallinterestedparties,willassistandrecommendtheresolutionofanydisputes,claims,andothercontroversiesthatmightariseamongtheparties.

V.MassTorts

ADRtechniquescanbeemployedprivatelybypartiesfacingthepros-pectofmasstortlitigationtoexploreinanonbindingfashiontheoptionsformanagement,evaluation,and/orresolutionofthedispute.Awiderangeofbindingandnonbindingtechniques,includingneu-tralevaluation,mediation,andarbitrationcanbeusedtoexplorethepotentialforresolutionofadisputeand/ortodevelopabasicframeworkfordiscussions.Althoughtheseoptionshavelimitationsandmaynotbeasubstituteforlitigationwithpossiblefullevidentiarytrials,theycanprovideausefulframeworkforearlydiscussionoftheissues.Thepartiesshouldbeabletoformulateprocedurestoassureconfidentialityandtoprotectagainsttheinappropriateuseofinformation.

39

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Conclusion

Adisputeresolutionclauseshouldaddressthespecialneedsofthepartiesinvolved.AninadequateADRclausecanproduceasmuchdelay,expense,andinconvenienceasatraditionallawsuit.Whenwritingadisputeresolutionclause,keepinmindthatitspurposeistoresolvedisputes,notcreatethem.Ifdisagreementsariseoverthemeaningoftheclause,itisoftenbecauseitfailedtoaddresstheparticularneedsoftheparties.Useofstandard,simpleAAAlanguagemayavoiddifficulties.DraftinganeffectiveADRagreementisthefirststepontheroadtosuccessfuldisputeresolution.

Afteradisputearises,partiescanrequestanadministrativeconferencewithaAAAcasemanagertoassisttheminestablishingappropriateproceduresnecessaryfortheiruniquecase.Thiscanbedonebeforeoraftermediatororarbitratorselection.Suchconferencescanexpeditetheproceedingsinmanycases.

ThisbrochuredescribeswaysinwhichsomepartieshavemodifiedtheAAA’stime-testedstandardclausetodealwithspecificconcerns.Giventhatcommercialtransactionsvarygreatly,itspurposeisnottourgeuseoftheprovisionscited,butrathertosuggesttherangeofpossibleoptions.ToarriveatthemostsuitableandeffectiveADRclause,partiesshouldconsultlegalcounselforguidanceandadvice.

Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses – A Practical Guide

40

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

Rules, forms, procedures and guides, as well as information about applying for a fee reduction or deferral, are subject to periodic change and updating. To ensure that you have the most current information, see our website at www.adr.org.

©2004, all rights are reserved by the American Arbitration Association.

© 2007 American Arbitration Association, Inc. All rights reserved. These Rules are the copyrighted property of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and are intended to be used in conjunction with the AAA’s administrative services. Any unauthorized use or modification of these Rules may violate copyright laws and other applicable laws. Please contact 800.778.7879 or [email protected] for additional information.

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010

AAA197-2.5M-7/07

Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Systems, Inc.

No. 08-15708 archived on November 26, 2010