Vacating Arbitration Awards for Mistakes of Fact

By Dammann, Amina | The Review of Litigation, Spring 2008 | Go to article overview

Vacating Arbitration Awards for Mistakes of Fact


Dammann, Amina, The Review of Litigation


I. INTRODUCTION

Arbitration awards are generally understood to be final. Nevertheless, national legislatures and international decisionmakers have seen the need to limit the finality of arbitration awards under certain circumstances. Generally, a defeated party to an arbitration award may try several different routes in order to destroy the effectiveness of the award. First, according to the arbitration rules of most institutional arbitration organizations, the arbitrator himself may correct or clarify the award.1 Second, the party may initiate a judicial proceeding before the competent court to vacate or set aside the arbitration award.2 Third, the unsuccessful party may seek to defend the recognition of the arbitration award in a foreign jurisdiction. Fourth, the party may invoke judicial recourse to hinder enforcement of the arbitration award. This Note addresses the second route only, where the defeated party engages the courts in an attempt to vacate the arbitration award.

Among other sources of law, Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 9 U.S.C. § 10 (United States Federal Arbitration Act), and section 1059 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozefiordnung (ZPO)) list grounds for vacating an arbitration award. While the German provision has been interpreted to provide an exhaustive list of vacatur grounds, U.S. courts have expanded on the independent bases included in section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and created common law grounds for vacatur, such as a violation of public policy, a manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrator, and the rendering of an arbitrary and capricious arbitration award.5

Neither the UNCITRAL Model Law nor the U.S. or German provisions expressly address the issue of whether an arbitration award may be judicially reviewed for errors of fact. This Note attempts to create a systematic picture detailing how U.S. courts handle factual reviews of arbitration awards. The U.S. analysis is then contrasted with the position adopted by German courts and commentators. Finally, a solution to the question of how to judicially review arbitration awards for factual errors is proposed.

The Note is organized as follows:

First, it will be pointed out that no international mandatory provisions either mandate a review of facts by domestic courts or generally forbid such a review. In particular, it is argued that, despite some contrary authority, the grounds listed in Article V of the New York Convention do not limit the grounds available in vacatur proceedings. Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law serves as a guideline for harmonizing arbitration laws internationally, but stops short of prescribing mandatory grounds for the annulment of arbitration awards.

Second, the U.S. statutory framework and its interpretation through the courts is analyzed. While one frequently encounters language suggesting that courts generally deny a vacatur of arbitration awards based on errors of fact, this Note argues that federal courts review the arbitrator's factual findings in certain situations. It will be established that a review of the arbitrator's factual findings is mandated with regard to the arbitrability issue, which, in essence, is a review of the underlying agreement rather than the arbitration award itself. The Note also shows that U.S. courts review the arbitrator's fact finding to ascertain whether an arbitration award is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, courts are likely to review facts in order to determine whether a conflict exists between an arbitration award and an established public policy. With regard to U.S. state law, it is noted that any state law providing for a broader factual review of arbitration awards risks being preempted by federal law. Furthermore, this Note explores whether parties are allowed to agree on a broader review of factual errors under U.S. federal and state law.

Third, the German legal framework for setting aside an arbitration award based on factual errors is presented. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Vacating Arbitration Awards for Mistakes of Fact
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.