Arbitration Agreement Severability
The court found that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a binding contract – and a binding arbitration agreement. The separation of a compromise clause, if the underlying contract is null and fore from the outset, is an issue that has been raised in numbers in India`s higher courts. Although the position since Kishorilal Gupta is still very fair with regard to the value of the precedent, it is normatively untenable, as it is based on erroneous legal argument and is incompatible with the policy of cross-sectional arbitration. Since the normative position in this area is to put an end to absceptibility even if the underlying contract is null and void from initio, this section will consider the most appropriate mechanism for adopting this modified position. A legislative amendment to the Arbitration Act to make its paragraph 16, paragraph 1, analogous to Article 7 of the English Act, is the most appropriate means, as it creates binding legal obligations without discretion and thus provides greater security for all parties concerned. In addition, legislation allows for consultation with relevant stakeholders, while anticipating issues such as retroactive application and identifiable exceptions. Similarly, the Montana Supreme Court sent a ability to adjudicate to an arbitrator in Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Canada, Inc., 2018 WL 6498693 (Mount. 11.12.2018). At Peeler, an owner sued both the contractor and the contractor for claims related to the construction of a custom blockhouse. Only the contractor`s agreement had a compromise clause, but the complaint stated that the design company was a related unit that had to be treated in the same way as the contractor. Thus, the contractor and design company moved to force arbitration. The owner argued that the arbitration agreement was permissive and non-compulsory and that the defendants had waived their right of conciliation pending its claim until he took legal action.
These arguments did not arise in court or before the Court of Appeal. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the accused did not waive their right to conciliation and that the owner did not challenge the validity or applicability of the arbitration agreement, his arguments should be heard by an arbitrator. Finally, the court found that the design company could impose an arbitration procedure as a fair Estoppel issue. It is incorrect to conclude that there are no rights and liabilities arising from a non-binding agreement. For example, the right against unjust enrichment is guaranteed in all cases under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In addition, parties arguing that the agreement is not factum may apply for “cancellation of the instrument” under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. These are examples of rights granted by law to the parties, even in cases of initial nullity of the agreement, which give them the right to go to the court for its execution. Although the Fiona Trust standard is not legally applicable, it must be considered fundamentally hereditary. It acknowledges that promises of conciliation, while security, are independent of the underlying contract. While the contractual promise relates to an obligation of enforcement and compensation, a promise of conciliation is simply to define the arbitration procedure as a means of reflection for the rights and obligations arising from that agreement.
Each promise is different in terms of purpose and coherence, and the ability to make all these promises must therefore be considered independently. In addition, Lord Hoffman had found in Fiona Trust that the development of a separation exception can cause disaster. Parties who have deliberately consented to arbitration may revoke such consent in order to favour traditional disputes that may better satisfy their current commercial interest.