Arbitration Agreement Third Party Beneficiary

The first case that future U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts invoked in private practice was on behalf of Manny and Carol Kaplan. Their family activities in securities trading suffered during the stock market crash of 1987 and the clearing house benefited. The clearing house conducted arbitration proceedings not only against its activities, but also against it in its personal capacity, if they had not personally accepted arbitration proceedings. First Chicago Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) found that the chaplains had not agreed to the arbitrator deciding on arbitration capacity and set aside an arbitral award against the chaplains. Similarly, the court found that the absence of the Marwahas in the arbitration contract was not available. The provision of the Court of Arbitration contained a broad reference to claims that might include claims against non-contracting parties. The clause did not limit the Burrs to arbitration only against the parties to the agreement. In addition, the Burrs attempted to distance the Marwahas from Subway by claiming that they were being prosecuted in their individual duties and not in their behavior as Subway development agents. The court cited a precedent that “has repeatedly held that a court will not allow plaintiffs to evade arbitration by simply designating individual agents of the party to the arbitration clause and suing them in their individual capacity. Doing so would undermine the federal policy in favor of arbitration and the specific arbitration clause in this case. Following this testimony, the defendants filed a new application for a stay of arbitration proceedings or a refusal, asserting that the claimant`s claims were thus linked to the franchise agreement and that they clearly act as agents for the franchisee, that it is important that they are not signatories.

In support of this new application, the defendants attached the transcript in which the franchisee stated that he knew that he was buying the franchise from the franchisee, that he was not signing a franchise agreement with the defendants in person, and that the franchisee knew that the defendant was still working for the franchisee. In addition, the defendants made an affidavit that all contacts with the franchisee took place in their capacity as Director of Franchise Development and that all emails contained this title of title. . . .

Comments are closed.