|
A federal court in Washington ruled that further discovery was necessary to determine whether the parties to a dispute entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause.
In Harden v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc., No. C07-5043-RJB, 2007 WL 836719 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2007), Harden and Lanier entered into negotiations regarding the lease of office equipment. Lanier presented Harden with a lease agreement, which Harden signed.
Lanier did not sign the agreement but still proceeded to order equipment identified in the lease. When Harden decided that he did not want to lease the equipment, Lanier sued for payment. In response, Harden brought a motion to determine whether the dispute was subject to an arbitration clause in the lease agreement.
The Court held that it was unable to determine whether the dispute was subject to arbitration because further discovery was necessary to determine if a contract existed between the parties. While the validity of a contract as a whole is an issue for the arbitrator to decide, a court must decide whether a contract actually exists. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006).
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|