{"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":"1 1","pages":""},"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.
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.