After the Legislature passed its own budget bills including a three - year extender of
the existing arbitration law, the enacted budget did not include any provision addressing arbitration — leaving the issue open.
Not exact matches
In an online message to his members, McManus declared victory — pointing out that the changes to the
arbitration law «largely mirror
existing provisions and considerations that have been in practice for many years.»
«(d)
EXISTING PROGRAMS - Nothing in this chapter is deemed to affect any program in which
arbitration is conducted pursuant to section title IX of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (Public
Law 100 - 702), as amended by section 1 of Public
Law 105 - 53.».
Although this provision came into effect after the
arbitration had commenced, the court found that it simply reflected the
existing strict standard of disclosure under French
law.
«Should it ever be determined that there
existed an inconsistency between the ECT and EU
Law», observed the Tribunal in RREEF Infrastructure, «the unqualified obligation in public international law of any arbitration tribunal constituted under the ECT would be to apply the form
Law», observed the Tribunal in RREEF Infrastructure, «the unqualified obligation in public international
law of any arbitration tribunal constituted under the ECT would be to apply the form
law of any
arbitration tribunal constituted under the ECT would be to apply the former.
Every year I re-evaluate
existing e-resources for researching international commercial
arbitration law.
... [B] y choosing
arbitration, the parties and their lawyers are giving priority to the decision of the specific case under
existing law over the refinement of legal principles over time.
The Federal
Arbitration Act (the Act) makes
arbitration agreements «valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract,» 9 U.S.C. ¶ 2, establishes an equal - treatment principle: A court may invalidate an
arbitration agreement based on «generally applicable contract defenses,» but not on legal rules that «apply only to
arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue,» AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339.
Thus, instead of changing and restricting the institution of investor - State
arbitration in order to align it more with public
law values, that same goal can be achieved by bringing public
law thinking into the
existing structures of investor - State
arbitration.
However, often the dispute is required under the language of the franchise agreement to be resolved by private
arbitration, outside of the court system (see
existing and future blog posts in the
Law Works Franchise Blog about franchise
arbitrations).
In B.C. the scope of appellate intervention in commercial
arbitration is narrow: there is limited jurisdiction for appellate review of
arbitration awards because B.C. is statutorily limited to questions of
law (
Arbitration Act, s. 31); even where such jurisdiction
exists, the S.C.C. held that a deferential standard of review — reasonableness — «almost always» applies to
arbitration awards (Sattva Capital v. Creston Moly Corp., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, at paras. 75, 104 and 106).
We conclude, however, that the defense to
arbitration found in the California Franchise Investment
Law is not a ground that exists at law or in equity «for the revocation of any contract,» but merely a ground that exists for the revocation of arbitration provisions in contracts subject to the California Franchise Investment L
Law is not a ground that
exists at
law or in equity «for the revocation of any contract,» but merely a ground that exists for the revocation of arbitration provisions in contracts subject to the California Franchise Investment L
law or in equity «for the revocation of any contract,» but merely a ground that
exists for the revocation of
arbitration provisions in contracts subject to the California Franchise Investment
LawLaw.