justice john paul stevens (pictured in 2006)
first, stevens observed arbitration clause in sales procedure agreement, chrysler soler , mitsubishi party. applied two-party disputes, yet soler s antitrust claim against both manufacturers. stretching language of arbitration clause far beyond ordinary meaning 1 possibly conclude encompasses three-party dispute. second, covered 5 of 15 articles of contract, , none of 5 addressed areas had given rise soler s antitrust claim. federal policy favoring arbitration cannot sustain weight court assigns it. clause requiring arbitration of claims relating contract surely not encompass claim arbitration clause part of contract in restraint of trade.
this, stevens noted, first time court had held statutory claim, opposed merely contractual one, arbitrable. however, in longer line of cases on labor arbitration, court had consistently held statutory claims not arbitrated. reasonable assume lawyers , executives not expect language in standard arbitration clause cover federal statutory claims.
he reiterated past holdings in antitrust cases court had indeed recognized public-policy role of private actions, particularly noting uniqueness of treble-damages provision when first passed. there are, in addition, several unusual features of antitrust enforcement scheme unequivocally require rejection of thought congress tolerate private arbitration of antitrust claims in lieu of statutory remedies fashioned : federal courts had jurisdiction, congress had required depositions in sherman act cases made public, , clayton act allowed judgement or decree in sherman act case prima facie proof of wrongdoing actions under it. [i]t not surprising of federal courts have considered question have uniformly , unhesitatingly concluded agreements arbitrate federal antitrust issues not enforceable, wrote, citing american safety once again.
this court advised endorse collective wisdom of distinguished judges of courts of appeals have unanimously concluded statutory remedies fashioned congress enforcement of antitrust laws render agreement arbitrate antitrust disputes unenforceable ... despotic decisionmaking of kind fine parties willing agree in advance settle best approximation of correct result in order resolve , inexpensively contractual dispute may arise in ongoing commercial relationship. such informality, however, unacceptable when every error may have devastating consequences important businesses in our national economy, , may undermine ability compete in world markets.
in final section, stevens responded majority s arguments international nature of dispute making arbitration more important. convention had anticipated signatory nations had or declare, through own laws, disputes not arbitrable. [t]he international obligations of united states permit honor congress commitment exclusive resolution of antitrust disputes in federal courts, how foreign courts had held categories of disputes, including analogous competition-law disputes, in countries not arbitrated. state department s brief had promised other signatory countries convention not upset if antitrust claims exempted due policies, reminded majority.
since majority had tacitly accepted not grounding argument contrary in outside support, stevens noted, seeks refuge in obtuse application of [scherk]. soler s case was, him, distinguished scherk same issue court had distinguished wilko: claim involved purely american law. consider clear rules of american antitrust law must govern claim of american automobile dealer has been injured international conspiracy restrain trade in american automobile market ... same antitrust questions presented if mitsubishi owned 2 american companies instead of 1 american , 1 japanese partner. when mitsubishi enters american market , plans engage in business in market on period of years, must recognize obligation comply american law , subject remedial provisions of american statutes. , that, stevens, meant car dealers day in court act as sherman act.
court s repeated incantation of high ideals of international arbitration creates impression case involves fate of institution designed implement formula world peace, stevens concluded.
but improper subordinate public interest in enforcement of antitrust policy private interest in resolving commercial disputes, equally unwise allow vision of world unity distort importance of selection of proper forum resolving dispute. other mechanism resolving controversies, international arbitration succeed if realistically limited tasks capable of performing well—the prompt , inexpensive resolution of contractual disputes between commercial partners ... in opinion, elected representatives of american people not have dispatch american citizen foreign land in search of uncertain remedy violation of public right protected sherman act ... unlike congress enacted sherman act in 1890, court today not seem appreciate value of economic freedom.
Comments
Post a Comment