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