Reference no: EM133683952
Scenario 1
Stella and Myrtle have a contract that includes a binding arbitration clause requiring the parties to arbitrate any legal dispute that arises out of their contract.
The arbitration clause provides that, if such a dispute arises, each party selects one arbitrator, and these two arbitrators decide the dispute. If these two arbitrators are unable to agree, the arbitration clause requires each arbitrator to state their conclusion on the dispute. Then, the arbitration clause requires the two arbitrators to choose a third arbitrator. This third arbitrator, without any further consultation or testimony, picks one of the two conclusions, and this becomes the arbitration award. The arbitration clause further provides that the arbitrators are authorized to award up to $250,000 in damages in any particular dispute.
A dispute arises and is submitted to arbitration as described in the agreement. After the hearing, Arbitrator Ann concludes there was no legal violation. On the other hand, Arbitrator Zed concludes there were gross violations of the law worth $400,000 in damages. Unable to agree on the proper conclusion for the dispute, the two arbitrators choose Arbitrator Xee as the third arbitrator. Arbitrator Xee makes Arbitrator Zed's conclusion the arbitration award. The award is appealed to a court.
Question
1. Is the court likely to uphold or strike down the award? Why? Fully discuss all issues relevant to the resolution of this case.
Scenario 2
Samuel Foxx worked as a seaman on an Exxon Shipping Co. oil tanker for more that eight years without incident. Then, one day, he boarded a ship for duty while intoxicated. This violated Exxon company policy. The policy allowed Exxon to discharge intoxicated employees as unfit for work. Exxon discharged Foxx.
Under a collective bargaining agreement between Exxon and the union representing their employees, the discharge was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator ordered Exxon to reinstate Foxx to his position on an oil tanker. Exxon filed suit against the union, challenging the arbitration award as contrary to public policy.
Questions
1. What public policy is Exxon referring to? Explain.
2. Should the court set aside this award? Explain.
|
Legal Positivism asserts-law is constructed by humanity
: Legal Positivism asserts that all law is constructed by humanity, and there are no laws determined by Nature or God.
|
|
Foreign Substance Test and Reasonable Expectation Test
: What is the difference between the Foreign Substance Test and the Reasonable Expectation Test?
|
|
Discuss in detail impact of the exclusionary rule
: Discuss in detail the impact of the exclusionary rule has on evidence illegally obtained.
|
|
Standpoint of law and of ethics
: Analyze this scenario from the standpoint of law and of ethics: For years, Dr. Eddingfield, a licensed physician, had been the Hurley family doctor.
|
|
What public policy is exxon referring to
: Is the court likely to uphold or strike down the award? What public policy is Exxon referring to? Should the court set aside this award? Explain.
|
|
Real estate prices are falling
: Real estate prices are falling, so Seller enters into a contract on April 2 to sell her apt for $400,000 to Buyer with the closing on May 1.
|
|
What is ladder of interpretation
: What is ladder of interpretation, according to the Globalyceum readings, and how does it help when using textualism, originalism, non-originalism
|
|
Civil wedding and marraige must be conducted
: Civil wedding/marraige must be conducted, there are allowed samme sex marraige for some countries.
|
|
High-profile crimes committed by individuals on probation
: Because of a number of high-profile crimes committed by individuals on probation or parole in other states,
|