|
In compelling arbitration of a contract dispute, a federal district court in Ohio upheld a somewhat vague arbitration agreement, as there was sufficient evidence indicating the parties intended to arbitrate any disputes.
In Health Care Logistics, Inc. v. Adonix Transcomm, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-815, 2007 WL 1974944 (S.D. Ohio July 3, 2007), Health Care Logistics sued Adonix for breach of a computer services contract. Adonix moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a Software Agreement Addendum.
Health Care Logistics argued that the addendum was not a valid arbitration agreement because it did not use the word "arbitration." Additionally, Health Care Logistics asserted the arbitration agreement was permissive rather than mandatory and only applied to disputes arising during the life of the contract.
The Court granted Adonix's motion to compel arbitration. The fact that the agreement failed to use the word "arbitration" was of no consequence. Further, the Court found that the arbitration agreement was mandatory. The agreement stated that "there should be a dispute resolution procedure" rather than "shall," but the surrounding language indicated the mandatory nature of the arbitration agreement. For instance, the agreement stated that disputed issues "will be given to third party for resolution."
Finally, the Court rejected Health Care Logistics' argument that unilateral repudiation foreclosed the right to arbitration, as the arbitration agreement applied to "any dispute."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|