A Common Law Approach to the Parties’ Intention in Arbitration Agreements

Q2 Social Sciences
I. Bantekas
{"title":"A Common Law Approach to the Parties’ Intention in Arbitration Agreements","authors":"I. Bantekas","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-12020003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nOffer and acceptance must be supplemented by the parties’ common intention, failing which there is no contract. Arbitration clauses are separable from the contract in which they are contained and hence constitute distinct contracts, albeit of a procedural nature. Even so, the courts typically conflate the parties’ common intention as expressed or implied in the main contract with the common intention required in the arbitration clause. Although technically incorrect, courts in the common law tradition are generally content with this approach and do not question its rationale. The article argues that while such an approach is acceptable, there may well be cases where a party can validly argue that this conflated common intention was misplaced.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12020003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Offer and acceptance must be supplemented by the parties’ common intention, failing which there is no contract. Arbitration clauses are separable from the contract in which they are contained and hence constitute distinct contracts, albeit of a procedural nature. Even so, the courts typically conflate the parties’ common intention as expressed or implied in the main contract with the common intention required in the arbitration clause. Although technically incorrect, courts in the common law tradition are generally content with this approach and do not question its rationale. The article argues that while such an approach is acceptable, there may well be cases where a party can validly argue that this conflated common intention was misplaced.
仲裁协议当事人意向性的普通法研究
要约和承诺必须辅以双方当事人的共同意思,没有共同意思就没有合同。仲裁条款与包含它们的合同是可分离的,因此构成不同的合同,尽管具有程序性质。即便如此,法院通常会将双方在主合同中明示或暗示的共同意图与仲裁条款中要求的共同意图混为一谈。尽管在技术上不正确,普通法传统中的法院通常对这种做法感到满意,并不质疑其理由。文章认为,虽然这种方法是可以接受的,但在某些情况下,一方可以有效地辩称,这种合并的共同意图是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Journal of Comparative Law
Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信